Discussion:
Prince Charles & possibility of him marrying
(too old to reply)
Lindsey
2004-06-07 00:29:03 UTC
Permalink
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.

Now unless I am missing something here, I thought that the heir to
throne and therefore technically the head of the Church of England
marry a divorcee, as in the case of King Edward VIII when he
divorcee Mrs Wallace Simpson, I believe he was actually exiled to
the remainder of his life after he was forced to abdicate in order
the woman he loved. Indeed I seem to remember that Princess Anne
her current husband in Scotland due to the change in the laws up

So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
Nick Milton
2004-06-07 11:14:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:29:03 +0100, "Lindsey"
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.
Now unless I am missing something here, I thought that the heir to
throne and therefore technically the head of the Church of England
marry a divorcee, as in the case of King Edward VIII when he
divorcee Mrs Wallace Simpson, I believe he was actually exiled to
the remainder of his life after he was forced to abdicate in order
the woman he loved. Indeed I seem to remember that Princess Anne
her current husband in Scotland due to the change in the laws up
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
You seem to be missing some characters at the end of each line?

Welcome to the group by the way

I would like to see the PoW treated the same as any other parishioner
on this issue

Nick
Jet Wood
2004-06-07 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
Welcome. The jelly-baby man will be along in a minute.
Post by Lindsey
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.
Now unless I am missing something here, I thought that the heir to
throne and therefore technically the head of the Church of England
Well, all other things being equal, he stands to become the supreme
governor of the CoE, but Christ is the only Head of the Church.
Post by Lindsey
marry a divorcee, as in the case of King Edward VIII when he
divorcee Mrs Wallace Simpson, I believe he was actually exiled to
the remainder of his life after he was forced to abdicate in order
the woman he loved.
There was much more going on than that. Anything more than a cursory
reading of royal history will suggest that neither Edw 8 nor Geo 6
really wanted to become king, but Geo 6 had a much more developed sense
of duty. I seriously doubt that the wishes of the CofE played more than
a minor part in the way those events unfolded.
Post by Lindsey
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
I don't think he said it was okay, but he did say that it was the
natural thing for them to do.

There is a lot going on in this situation, and no doubt we don't know
the whole story anyway, but there are some points worth making and
questions worth asking.

P1. People are generally incapable of behaving perfectly
P2. PC as heir to the throne is somewhat constrained in what he is
allowed to do, what it is politic for him to do and what it is safe for
him to do.
P3. PC and CPB's relationship is a remarkably long standing one
P4. PC probably married LDS primarily because she was acceptable to the
establishment.
P5. PD didn't exactly prove herself to be a paragon of virtue either

Q1. Which do you think would be worse, PC becoming KG7 with a mistress
or PC becoming KG7 with QC or PC becoming KG7 married to Mrs W?
Q2. If the PC/CPB relationship predates the marriage of PC to LDS, then
arguably the PC/LDS marriage should be frowned on. But since CPB was
married herself by then, that relationship should also be frowned on.
One can't win, can one?

It would have been easiest for all concerned if PC had proposed to C
when she was Camilla Shand in the early 1970's. I gather they were very
close back then, and C married APB because it looked like PC would never
propose anything other than close friendship. If their feeling really
are as deep as they appear, then it is the natural thing for them to
marry, and one would imagine that it would have been the natrual thing
30 years ago as well. Perhaps the only conclusion is that one, other or
both is/are either chumps or under some restraint at the time.

It is, when you think about it, a constitutional oddity that a murderer
can become king, or a philanderer can become king (so long as he has
never actually gone as far as marrying one of many concubines) but
someone who may have been pressed to marry the wrong woman for the sake
of producing heirs ends up with question marks over him.

The easiest solution to the knotty problem is to disestablish the
church. The link between monarchy and church hierarchy is increasingly
irrelevant given the way British society has changed.
--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.
Neil Davey
2004-06-07 14:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jet Wood
Welcome. The jelly-baby man will be along in a minute.
Ta da! :O)

Hi Lindsey, welcome to the group. Help yourself to virtual
Jellybabies, the One True Sweet. :O)

As for the Prince of Wales I think he's free to marry, it's just
Camila who is the argument point nowadays.

Cheers

Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for the Jelly babies :-))))
Post by Neil Davey
Post by Jet Wood
Welcome. The jelly-baby man will be along in a minute.
Ta da! :O)
Hi Lindsey, welcome to the group. Help yourself to virtual
Jellybabies, the One True Sweet. :O)
As for the Prince of Wales I think he's free to marry, it's just
Camila who is the argument point nowadays.
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Richard Emblem
2004-06-07 16:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jet Wood
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
Welcome. The jelly-baby man will be along in a minute.
Lindsey please accept this batch of fresh ukrc virtual jelly babies as
our welcome to the group. You will note that, like the group, they
come in all flavours.
Richard
Alec Brady
2004-06-07 18:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Emblem
Lindsey please accept this batch of fresh ukrc virtual jelly babies as
our welcome to the group. You will note that, like the group, they
come in all flavours...
...and colours, including Scarlet Woman.
--
Alec Brady
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:49:41 UTC
Permalink
hehe
Post by Alec Brady
Post by Richard Emblem
Lindsey please accept this batch of fresh ukrc virtual jelly babies as
our welcome to the group. You will note that, like the group, they
come in all flavours...
...and colours, including Scarlet Woman.
--
Alec Brady
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:49:22 UTC
Permalink
my special linking is for the black ones, they taste of liquorice!!
thank you for the welcome.
Lindsey
Post by Richard Emblem
Post by Jet Wood
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
Welcome. The jelly-baby man will be along in a minute.
Lindsey please accept this batch of fresh ukrc virtual jelly babies as
our welcome to the group. You will note that, like the group, they
come in all flavours.
Richard
"Bedouin" , co.uk@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
2004-06-07 18:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jet Wood
It is, when you think about it, a constitutional oddity that a murderer
can become king, or a philanderer can become king (so long as he has
never actually gone as far as marrying one of many concubines) but
someone who may have been pressed to marry the wrong woman for the sake
of producing heirs ends up with question marks over him.
The problem is not with Charles remarrying - or even with him being an
ex-adulterer - the problem is that CPB is divorced with a husband still
living.

So if Charles want to marry CPB he must first murder her husband and, having
repented, he will then be free to marry :)
Quasin
2004-06-07 20:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Bedouin" , ***@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
The problem is not with Charles remarrying - or even with him being an
ex-adulterer - the problem is that CPB is divorced with a husband still
living.
So if Charles want to marry CPB he must first murder her husband and, having
repented, he will then be free to marry :)
Like King David did? :-)
"Bedouin" , co.uk@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
2004-06-07 20:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quasin
Post by "Bedouin" , ***@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
The problem is not with Charles remarrying - or even with him being an
ex-adulterer - the problem is that CPB is divorced with a husband still
living.
So if Charles want to marry CPB he must first murder her husband and, having
repented, he will then be free to marry :)
Like King David did? :-)
Exactly - there's a good biblical precedence
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Bedouin" , ***@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
Post by Jet Wood
It is, when you think about it, a constitutional oddity that a murderer
can become king, or a philanderer can become king (so long as he has
never actually gone as far as marrying one of many concubines) but
someone who may have been pressed to marry the wrong woman for the sake
of producing heirs ends up with question marks over him.
The problem is not with Charles remarrying - or even with him being an
ex-adulterer - the problem is that CPB is divorced with a husband still
living.
So if Charles want to marry CPB he must first murder her husband and, having
repented, he will then be free to marry :)
Now I like this concept, so am I the only Brit to think that there is a lot
of truth in the rumour that Princess Di was murdered - maybe to set Charles
free to remarry?? Mind you this theory is somewhat akin to King David
killing Uriah in order to marry his wife. Well I suppose if it is ok for
King David to do it in scripture then it must be OK for our monarchy today
to do it.
Lindsey
"Bedouin" , co.uk@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
2004-06-09 20:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jet Wood
Post by "Bedouin" , ***@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
The problem is not with Charles remarrying - or even with him being an
ex-adulterer - the problem is that CPB is divorced with a husband still
living.
So if Charles want to marry CPB he must first murder her husband and,
having
Post by "Bedouin" , ***@news-text.cableinet.co.uk
repented, he will then be free to marry :)
Now I like this concept, so am I the only Brit to think that there is a lot
of truth in the rumour that Princess Di was murdered - maybe to set Charles
free to remarry??
I'm sure some people believe that - but it is not credible given the
circumstances.
Post by Jet Wood
Mind you this theory is somewhat akin to King David
killing Uriah in order to marry his wife. Well I suppose if it is ok for
King David to do it in scripture then it must be OK for our monarchy today
to do it.
One of the things about scripture is that lots of people did things of which
God disapproved and were still forgiven.
Jet Wood
2004-06-09 21:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
am I the only Brit to think that there is a lot
of truth in the rumour that Princess Di was murdered
Nah. There is a much more plausible explanation, though, so I wouldn't
waste your time on that theory.
--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.
Nick Milton
2004-06-10 07:29:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 03:53:56 +0100, "Lindsey"
Post by Lindsey
Now I like this concept, so am I the only Brit to think that there is a lot
of truth in the rumour that Princess Di was murdered - maybe to set Charles
free to remarry??
Alas, there are others who think the same. This is known as a
"conspiracy theory"
Mark Goodge
2004-06-10 20:08:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:29:44 +0000 (UTC), Nick Milton put finger to
Post by Nick Milton
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 03:53:56 +0100, "Lindsey"
Post by Lindsey
Now I like this concept, so am I the only Brit to think that there is a lot
of truth in the rumour that Princess Di was murdered - maybe to set Charles
free to remarry??
Alas, there are others who think the same. This is known as a
"conspiracy theory"
Which, like most conspiracy theories, fails even rudimentary tests of
plausibility.

Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"I don't care if it hurts, I want to have control"
Ray Almond
2004-06-07 22:44:45 UTC
Permalink
In an article on uk.religion.christian "Jet Wood" writes:

<snip>
Post by Jet Wood
It would have been easiest for all concerned if PC had proposed
when she was Camilla Shand in the early 1970's. I gather they
close back then, and C married APB because it looked like PC
propose anything other than close friendship. If their feeling
are as deep as they appear, then it is the natural thing for
marry, and one would imagine that it would have been the natrual
30 years ago as well. Perhaps the only conclusion is that one,
both is/are either chumps or under some restraint at the time.
I thought a large part of the problem was/is that Camilla
is Catholic and therefore Prince Charles couldn't marry her.

--
Ray Almond
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chaczun Gille
Houer ne taupe de hile
Tot-fait, j'appelle au boiteur
Chaque fele dans un broc, est-ce crosne?
Un Gille qu'aime tant berline a fetard.
Alec Brady
2004-06-08 12:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Almond
I thought a large part of the problem was/is that Camilla
is Catholic and therefore Prince Charles couldn't marry her.
Eh? Is she? First I've heard of it.
--
Alec Brady
Michael J Davis
2004-06-08 14:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Almond
<snip>
Post by Jet Wood
It would have been easiest for all concerned if PC had proposed
when she was Camilla Shand in the early 1970's. I gather they
close back then, and C married APB because it looked like PC
propose anything other than close friendship. If their feeling
are as deep as they appear, then it is the natural thing for
marry, and one would imagine that it would have been the natrual
30 years ago as well. Perhaps the only conclusion is that one,
both is/are either chumps or under some restraint at the time.
I thought a large part of the problem was/is that Camilla
is Catholic and therefore Prince Charles couldn't marry her.
I don't think CPB *is* a Catholic[1]. Her old man was, but it didn't
stop his remarrying!

Mike

[1] In spite of a report in the Times last week that made this claim.
How the mighty fall!
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Delight in the Lord God always!
<><
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Almond
<snip>
Post by Jet Wood
It would have been easiest for all concerned if PC had proposed
when she was Camilla Shand in the early 1970's. I gather they
close back then, and C married APB because it looked like PC
propose anything other than close friendship. If their feeling
are as deep as they appear, then it is the natural thing for
marry, and one would imagine that it would have been the natrual
30 years ago as well. Perhaps the only conclusion is that one,
both is/are either chumps or under some restraint at the time.
I thought a large part of the problem was/is that Camilla
is Catholic and therefore Prince Charles couldn't marry her.
Ouch didnt realise this - maybe thats where changes to the British
constitution come into it.
Lindsey
Post by Ray Almond
--
Ray Almond
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chaczun Gille
Houer ne taupe de hile
Tot-fait, j'appelle au boiteur
Chaque fele dans un broc, est-ce crosne?
Un Gille qu'aime tant berline a fetard.
Michael J Davis
2004-06-09 23:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
Post by Ray Almond
<snip>
Post by Jet Wood
It would have been easiest for all concerned if PC had proposed
when she was Camilla Shand in the early 1970's. I gather they
close back then, and C married APB because it looked like PC
propose anything other than close friendship. If their feeling
are as deep as they appear, then it is the natural thing for
marry, and one would imagine that it would have been the natrual
30 years ago as well. Perhaps the only conclusion is that one,
both is/are either chumps or under some restraint at the time.
I thought a large part of the problem was/is that Camilla
is Catholic and therefore Prince Charles couldn't marry her.
Ouch didnt realise this - maybe thats where changes to the British
constitution come into it.
I keep posting that she isn't. Why doesn't anyone believe me?

<sulks>

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"If you are offended by anything, whether intended or
unintended, you do not know the way of peace..."
St. Maximus the Confessor
<><
Kyril Jenner
2004-06-08 20:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jet Wood
The easiest solution to the knotty problem is to disestablish the
church. The link between monarchy and church hierarchy is increasingly
irrelevant given the way British society has changed.
Why not abolish the monarchy while you are at it?

Archimandrite Kyril Jenner
Steve Cleary
2004-06-09 07:07:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 21:46:11 +0100, "Kyril Jenner"
Post by Kyril Jenner
Post by Jet Wood
The easiest solution to the knotty problem is to disestablish the
church. The link between monarchy and church hierarchy is increasingly
irrelevant given the way British society has changed.
Why not abolish the monarchy while you are at it?
That would be an excellent idea. Unfortunately, you have just commited
a criminal offence by suggesting it,

Steve Cleary
Gareth McCaughan
2004-06-09 21:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Steve Cleary <***@nks.co.uk> writes:

[Kyril Jenner wrote, possibly tongue in cheek:]
Post by Steve Cleary
Post by Kyril Jenner
Why not abolish the monarchy while you are at it?
That would be an excellent idea. Unfortunately, you have just commited
a criminal offence by suggesting it,
I have difficulty believing this. Would you like to convince me?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Ken Down
2004-06-09 06:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyril Jenner
Why not abolish the monarchy while you are at it?
What? And have a presidency? Good grief, we'd end up with someone like
George Bush - and tough though the choice may be, I think I'd prefer King
Charles III to George Bush II.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: ***@argonet.co.uk
Angela Rayner
2004-06-09 21:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Down
Post by Kyril Jenner
Why not abolish the monarchy while you are at it?
What? And have a presidency? Good grief, we'd end up with someone like
George Bush - and tough though the choice may be, I think I'd prefer King
Charles III to George Bush II.
Now I am really surprised. I'd have had you down as a Bush supporter ;-)

Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>

"So we say to God: Give us bread... We do not say, give us a prominent
position in assemblies or monuments and statues raised to us, nor silken
robes and musicians at meals, nor any other thing by which the soul is
estranged from the thought of God and higher things; no - but only bread!"
St. Gregory of Nyssa
Michael J Davis
2004-06-09 23:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Ken Down
Post by Kyril Jenner
Why not abolish the monarchy while you are at it?
What? And have a presidency? Good grief, we'd end up with someone like
George Bush - and tough though the choice may be, I think I'd prefer King
Charles III to George Bush II.
Now I am really surprised. I'd have had you down as a Bush supporter ;-)
As in Acts 7:30? ;-)

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><
Kyril Jenner
2004-06-10 20:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Down
Post by Kyril Jenner
Why not abolish the monarchy while you are at it?
What? And have a presidency? Good grief, we'd end up with someone like
George Bush - and tough though the choice may be, I think I'd prefer King
Charles III to George Bush II.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Why is it that at any mention of a possible presidency people automatically
assume the USA or French model rather than, say, the Irish or German model?
I would have severe problems with the USA model, but no problem with the
Irish model of a figurehead Head of State with severely limited powers (like
our current monarchy) but with democratic accountability and a limited term
of office without seeking re-election.

Archimandrite Kyril Jenner

Peter Beale
2004-06-09 06:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jet Wood
Q1. Which do you think would be worse, PC becoming KG7 with a mistress
or PC becoming KG7 with QC or PC becoming KG7 married to Mrs W?
I know they don't always use their first names - but has there been any
suggestion that he would not become KC3?
--
Peter Beale
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Agreed - I personally think that the monarchy should not be linked to being
the head of the CofE, but I am but a minion and I don't suppose my personal
view will count in the big scheme of things.
Lindsey
Post by Jet Wood
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
Welcome. The jelly-baby man will be along in a minute.
Post by Lindsey
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.
Now unless I am missing something here, I thought that the heir to
throne and therefore technically the head of the Church of England
Well, all other things being equal, he stands to become the supreme
governor of the CoE, but Christ is the only Head of the Church.
Post by Lindsey
marry a divorcee, as in the case of King Edward VIII when he
divorcee Mrs Wallace Simpson, I believe he was actually exiled to
the remainder of his life after he was forced to abdicate in order
the woman he loved.
There was much more going on than that. Anything more than a cursory
reading of royal history will suggest that neither Edw 8 nor Geo 6
really wanted to become king, but Geo 6 had a much more developed sense
of duty. I seriously doubt that the wishes of the CofE played more than
a minor part in the way those events unfolded.
Post by Lindsey
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
I don't think he said it was okay, but he did say that it was the
natural thing for them to do.
There is a lot going on in this situation, and no doubt we don't know
the whole story anyway, but there are some points worth making and
questions worth asking.
P1. People are generally incapable of behaving perfectly
P2. PC as heir to the throne is somewhat constrained in what he is
allowed to do, what it is politic for him to do and what it is safe for
him to do.
P3. PC and CPB's relationship is a remarkably long standing one
P4. PC probably married LDS primarily because she was acceptable to the
establishment.
P5. PD didn't exactly prove herself to be a paragon of virtue either
Q1. Which do you think would be worse, PC becoming KG7 with a mistress
or PC becoming KG7 with QC or PC becoming KG7 married to Mrs W?
Q2. If the PC/CPB relationship predates the marriage of PC to LDS, then
arguably the PC/LDS marriage should be frowned on. But since CPB was
married herself by then, that relationship should also be frowned on.
One can't win, can one?
It would have been easiest for all concerned if PC had proposed to C
when she was Camilla Shand in the early 1970's. I gather they were very
close back then, and C married APB because it looked like PC would never
propose anything other than close friendship. If their feeling really
are as deep as they appear, then it is the natural thing for them to
marry, and one would imagine that it would have been the natrual thing
30 years ago as well. Perhaps the only conclusion is that one, other or
both is/are either chumps or under some restraint at the time.
It is, when you think about it, a constitutional oddity that a murderer
can become king, or a philanderer can become king (so long as he has
never actually gone as far as marrying one of many concubines) but
someone who may have been pressed to marry the wrong woman for the sake
of producing heirs ends up with question marks over him.
The easiest solution to the knotty problem is to disestablish the
church. The link between monarchy and church hierarchy is increasingly
irrelevant given the way British society has changed.
--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.
Peter Beale
2004-06-09 22:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
Agreed - I personally think that the monarchy should not be linked to being
the head of the CofE, but I am but a minion and I don't suppose my personal
view will count in the big scheme of things.
Lindsey
You appear to be vacillating between top- and bottom-posting. The latter is to
be preferred!
--
Peter Beale
David Lane
2004-06-07 11:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
My belief is that if there is a rule that the CHurch of England should not
marry divorcees how can it be different for someone who is going to be the
Head of the Church of England?

Therefore if he marries her it should be a civil ceremony and he should not
become King or the Head of the C of E.

Harsh but simple. Either we follow Biblical principles or we don't. If he
doesn't then he can't be considered as upholding Biblical principles.

David
Jet Wood
2004-06-07 12:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lane
Either we follow Biblical principles or we don't.
I think you'll find it impossible to discover one single human being
apart from Jesus of Nazareth who has managed to do so consistently in
all circumstances.
--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.
David Lane
2004-06-07 13:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jet Wood
Post by David Lane
Either we follow Biblical principles or we don't.
I think you'll find it impossible to discover one single human being
apart from Jesus of Nazareth who has managed to do so consistently in
all circumstances.
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head of
the Church in England?

It's not a good advert for Christianity ... I agree that historically it was
probably true (i.e. Henry 8th) but in recent years there is a precedent (Ed
8th).
Robert Marshall
2004-06-07 14:28:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lane
Post by Jet Wood
Post by David Lane
Either we follow Biblical principles or we don't.
I think you'll find it impossible to discover one single human
being apart from Jesus of Nazareth who has managed to do so
consistently in all circumstances.
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official
head of the Church in England?
It's not a good advert for Christianity ... I agree that
historically it was probably true (i.e. Henry 8th) but in recent
years there is a precedent (Ed 8th).
Edward VII was - I think - not particularly good in that regard and
then there were various of the George's, Charles II etc, but in those
days us plebs could be kept ignorant

All part of the baggage of establishment and possibly of fallible humanity

Robert
--
Intelligence is nothing but analysed faith - Franz Schubert
Dave Goode
2004-06-07 14:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lane
Post by Jet Wood
I think you'll find it impossible to discover one single human being
apart from Jesus of Nazareth who has managed to do so consistently in
all circumstances.
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head of
the Church in England?
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries, and she was the
first to receive the good news of the Resurrection, the first person to
whom the risen Christ revealed himself, and became Apostle to the Apostles.

Would you still say what you said above if he had shown repentance and
sought and received absolution and forgiveness for his sins? And, come to
think of it, how do you know he hasn't? He's certainly under no obligation
to tell you, or anyone else, what goes on between himself and his spirutal
director.

Dave
--
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/
Simon Crouch
2004-06-07 15:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>

all the best,

Simon.
Dave Goode
2004-06-07 17:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and
at least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
<pedant_mode>Wasn't what? A prostitute, a fornicator, a responsible party to
adultery, a permutation of these, or all of these?</pedant_mode>

Dave
--
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/
Simon Crouch
2004-06-07 17:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Goode
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and
at least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
<pedant_mode>Wasn't what? A prostitute, a fornicator, a responsible party to
adultery, a permutation of these, or all of these?</pedant_mode>
All of the above, M'lud.

all the best,

Simon.
Dave Goode
2004-06-07 18:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Crouch
All of the above, M'lud.
You're not coming over all Sola Scriptura on us, are you?

Dvae
--
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/
Simon Crouch
2004-06-07 20:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Goode
Post by Simon Crouch
All of the above, M'lud.
You're not coming over all Sola Scriptura on us, are you?
;-)

all the best,

Simon.
Michael J Davis
2004-06-07 22:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!

We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
We arrive at the Truth not by agreement
but by open minded disagreement,
while to close our mind is to be disagreeable.
<><
Angela Rayner
2004-06-08 06:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)

Peace,
--
Angela Rayner ><8>

"So we say to God: Give us bread... We do not say, give us a prominent
position in assemblies or monuments and statues raised to us, nor silken
robes and musicians at meals, nor any other thing by which the soul is
estranged from the thought of God and higher things; no - but only bread!"
St. Gregory of Nyssa
Michael J Davis
2004-06-08 09:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)
;-)


<serious mode on>

Interesting. I wonder if anyone has a theology primer that shows the
relationship between the key (RC) doctrines. It would make life a lot
simpler to have a diagram showing the logical steps between them. Alec?

<serious mode off>

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"Faith is muscle to be exercised,
not elastic to be stretched"
<><
Alec Brady
2004-06-08 11:57:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:17:26 +0100, Michael J Davis
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Michael J Davis
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)
In the verse immediately following the one that records the Divinity
of the Holy Spirit ;¬)
Post by Michael J Davis
;-)
Interesting. I wonder if anyone has a theology primer that shows the
relationship between the key (RC) doctrines. It would make life a lot
simpler to have a diagram showing the logical steps between them. Alec?
Eek!

I don't know that such a thing exists, Mike. Yes, it would make life a
lot simpler, but even the Summa isn't Euclid - it doesn't proceed by
traceable logical steps from axioms to theorems. So I can't help you
there.

Sorry.
--
Alec Brady
Michael J Davis
2004-06-08 14:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alec Brady
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:17:26 +0100, Michael J Davis
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Michael J Davis
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)
In the verse immediately following the one that records the Divinity
of the Holy Spirit ;¬)
Post by Michael J Davis
;-)
Interesting. I wonder if anyone has a theology primer that shows the
relationship between the key (RC) doctrines. It would make life a lot
simpler to have a diagram showing the logical steps between them. Alec?
Eek!
I don't know that such a thing exists, Mike. Yes, it would make life a
lot simpler, but even the Summa isn't Euclid - it doesn't proceed by
traceable logical steps from axioms to theorems. So I can't help you
there.
Well, I daren't say it in public but log.mumble.mumble.ical wasn't
really what I had in mind. (I *know* it's what I said!).

Just a sort of mind-map really. The sort of thing I'd have thought you'd
do at seminary. ;-)

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Alec Brady
2004-06-08 17:05:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:06:36 +0100, Michael J Davis
Post by Michael J Davis
Just a sort of mind-map really. The sort of thing I'd have thought you'd
do at seminary. ;-)
Oh. Ah.

No, sorry, we never did that sort of thing. Interesting idea, though.
I suspect a mind-map of the catechism would end up looking like a
plate of spaghetti...

I think you'd really want a Dominican for that sort of thing. I'll
see if I can find you one :o)
--
Alec Brady
Steve Cleary
2004-06-08 13:30:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:39:21 +0100, Angela Rayner
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)
As well as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the assumption of
Mary, praying to saints, the existence of purgatory......

Steve Cleary
Robert Marshall
2004-06-08 14:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Cleary
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:39:21 +0100, Angela Rayner
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication
herself and at least potentially responsible for clients'
adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)
As well as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the assumption of
Mary, praying to saints, the existence of purgatory......
Or having a monarch as supreme governor (to bash someone other than the RCC)

Robert
--
Intelligence is nothing but analysed faith - Franz Schubert
Alec Brady
2004-06-08 15:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Cleary
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:39:21 +0100, Angela Rayner
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)
As well as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the assumption of
Mary, praying to saints, the existence of purgatory......
...the doctrine of the Trinity, the sufficiency of Scripture, the
canon of Scripture, the closure of Scripture, original sin, the
baptism of infants...
--
Alec Brady
Michael J Davis
2004-06-08 14:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Cleary
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 07:39:21 +0100, Angela Rayner
Post by Angela Rayner
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries,
<panto_mode> Oh no she wasn't! </panto_mode>
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
Yes, Mike... Now just remind me where the Bible records the BVM's
immaculate conception :-)
As well as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the assumption of
Mary, praying to saints, the existence of purgatory......
I am still waiting, Steve, for you to tell me the doctrines that you
claim *contradict* the Scriptures, then we'll move on to those. ;-)

Meanwhile, you can tell me whence comes, and on what authority, the
Trinity.

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Peter Beale
2004-06-09 06:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael J Davis
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
And where does the Biblical record say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?
--
Peter Beale
Michael J Davis
2004-06-09 08:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Beale
Post by Michael J Davis
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
And where does the Biblical record say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?
Peter, you have jumped in a little late. It doesn't.

My point is that there is no suggestion in the Bible that MM was a
prostitute, I am always pointing that out. Merely that she was relieved
of seven demons.

Join the club.... <g>

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Quasin
2004-06-09 14:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Beale
Post by Michael J Davis
I'm delighted to welcome Simon to the Mary Magdalene supporter's club!
We Catholics stick to the Biblical record!!
And where does the Biblical record say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?
Nowhere; and the Catholic church does not teach that she was a
prostitute.

Many teachers and preachers and commentators of many denominations
including Catholics have taught that MM was a prostitute - I see it
often in print - but the Catholic church institution does not hold
that position as an official teaching and in recent years has worked
to stress the opposite, that there is no basis for suggesting MM was a
prostitute.

Quasin (No, I'm not a Catholic)
Quasin
2004-06-07 19:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries, and she was the
first to receive the good news of the Resurrection, the first person to
whom the risen Christ revealed himself, and became Apostle to the Apostles.
Would you still say what you said above if he had shown repentance and
sought and received absolution and forgiveness for his sins? And, come to
think of it, how do you know he hasn't? He's certainly under no obligation
to tell you, or anyone else, what goes on between himself and his spirutal
director.
I don't mean this as any kind of comment on God's forgiveness and
restoration of those who stray sexually of otherwise, but nothing in
the Bible says or implies that Mary Magdalene ever indulged in
prostitution or fornication.
Simon Crouch
2004-06-07 20:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quasin
Post by Dave Goode
Well, the Magdalene was a prostitute, guilty of fornication herself and at
least potentially responsible for clients' adulteries, and she was the
first to receive the good news of the Resurrection, the first person to
whom the risen Christ revealed himself, and became Apostle to the Apostles.
Would you still say what you said above if he had shown repentance and
sought and received absolution and forgiveness for his sins? And, come to
think of it, how do you know he hasn't? He's certainly under no obligation
to tell you, or anyone else, what goes on between himself and his spirutal
director.
I don't mean this as any kind of comment on God's forgiveness and
restoration of those who stray sexually of otherwise, but nothing in
the Bible says or implies that Mary Magdalene ever indulged in
prostitution or fornication.
You are, of course, correct. The identification of MM with the woman "who
was a sinner" in Luke is a rather late tradition (IIRC, from about the sixth
century). Some might even suggest the idea was put about to downplay a
developing cult of MM...

all the best,

Simon.
Nick Milton
2004-06-07 14:42:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:44 +0100, "David Lane"
Post by David Lane
Post by Jet Wood
Post by David Lane
Either we follow Biblical principles or we don't.
I think you'll find it impossible to discover one single human being
apart from Jesus of Nazareth who has managed to do so consistently in
all circumstances.
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head of
the Church in England?
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Neil Davey
2004-06-08 12:15:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Surely there's a difference between him being in the church and
heading the Church of England? It's a matter of attempting to lead by
example.

Cheers

Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Nick Milton
2004-06-08 13:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Surely there's a difference between him being in the church and
heading the Church of England? It's a matter of attempting to lead by
example.
The point is, Neil, we are all sinners.
Steve Cleary
2004-06-08 15:07:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:06:46 +0000 (UTC), Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Surely there's a difference between him being in the church and
heading the Church of England? It's a matter of attempting to lead by
example.
The point is, Neil, we are all sinners.
The point is not that we are all sinners. In this case at least, there
has been no indication of repentance for the adultery commited.

Steve Cleary
Nick Milton
2004-06-08 16:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Cleary
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:06:46 +0000 (UTC), Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Surely there's a difference between him being in the church and
heading the Church of England? It's a matter of attempting to lead by
example.
The point is, Neil, we are all sinners.
The point is not that we are all sinners. In this case at least, there
has been no indication of repentance for the adultery commited.
a) Is there a rule that repentance has to be indicated to Steve
Cleary?

b) Is Steve Cleary convinced that he is fully repentant of all his
sins?
Phil
2004-06-09 00:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Milton
Post by Steve Cleary
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:06:46 +0000 (UTC), Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Surely there's a difference between him being in the church and
heading the Church of England? It's a matter of attempting to lead by
example.
The point is, Neil, we are all sinners.
The point is not that we are all sinners. In this case at least, there
has been no indication of repentance for the adultery commited.
a) Is there a rule that repentance has to be indicated to Steve
Cleary?
b) Is Steve Cleary convinced that he is fully repentant of all his
sins?
And you seriously think that a person who publicly confesses (indeed went to
the trouble of appearing on worldwide TV to do so!) habitual sin should be
accepted into headship of the church without an equally public renouncing of
said sin and commitment to the values of the church?

How very odd.

One wonders if you would say the same if he had been the former organiser of
the Peadophile Information Exchange or a group called Legalise Rape.

It is hypocritical for any of us to demand that another person live without
sin when we know that we cannot, but it behoves him who made public the sin
(as Charles did when he went on the telly) to publicly regret the sin he so
clearly publicised.

I doubt he will have to though and the C of E will continue to shame the
name of Jesus by letting itself be headed up by a known liar and adulterer.
In his book George Carey says that they should marry because they love each
other, oh well that makes it alright then eh?

Phil


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 07/06/2004
Steve Cleary
2004-06-09 22:10:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 01:36:37 +0100, "Phil"
Post by Phil
Post by Nick Milton
a) Is there a rule that repentance has to be indicated to Steve
Cleary?
b) Is Steve Cleary convinced that he is fully repentant of all his
sins?
And you seriously think that a person who publicly confesses (indeed went to
the trouble of appearing on worldwide TV to do so!) habitual sin should be
accepted into headship of the church without an equally public renouncing of
said sin and commitment to the values of the church?
One of the key issues here is that Charles (regardless of the extent
of his sin) *will* be the governor of the CofE, because upon becoming
monarch, he will be so. It goes with the job, as it were. As members
of the CofE, you not only have no say in the matter. Not only that,
but no doubt we will hear a load of codswallop from the CofE at his
coronation as to how God has anointed him for the job, blah blah blah.
Do pass the sickbucket.....
Post by Phil
How very odd.
That's precisely what happens when you have someone like Charlie as
head.
Post by Phil
I doubt he will have to though and the C of E will continue to shame the
name of Jesus by letting itself be headed up by a known liar and adulterer.
Par for the course, I'm afraid.

Steve Cleary
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Cleary
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:06:46 +0000 (UTC), Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Surely there's a difference between him being in the church and
heading the Church of England? It's a matter of attempting to lead by
example.
The point is, Neil, we are all sinners.
The point is not that we are all sinners. In this case at least, there
has been no indication of repentance for the adultery commited.
Steve Cleary
I might be missing the point here, but surely the issue is the fact that as
heir to the throne the CofE church shouldn't let him marry a divorcee when
it kept out Edward VIII for that very reason. ie the reigning monarch is
considered to the head of the CofE and as such cannot marry a divorcee
because the CofE in general disagrees with remarriage of divorcees. (i.e.
in the eyes of God they are still married to their first partner etc). I
believe if I am reading scripture correctly it states that a man may divorce
his wife and put her out for adultery (Deut 24:1-4). Then it goes on to
state about her remarrying etc, and the 1st husband cant remarry her etc
after she has been married and divorced from the 2nd husband, so does this
scripture then somewhat make a mockery of the CofE stand against remarriage
I wonder.
Lindsey
Nick Milton
2004-06-10 07:28:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 03:02:12 +0100, "Lindsey"
Post by Lindsey
I might be missing the point here, but surely the issue is the fact that as
heir to the throne the CofE church shouldn't let him marry a divorcee when
it kept out Edward VIII for that very reason. ie the reigning monarch is
considered to the head of the CofE and as such cannot marry a divorcee
because the CofE in general disagrees with remarriage of divorcees.
The C of E does not disallow remarriage of divorcees. It allows it, on
pastoral grounds, and at the discretion of the parish priest. There
are some guidelines, but AIUI no general rules.

From the C of E website

"In January 2000, a working party of the House of Bishops issued a
sequel about further marriages after divorce. One key feature for all
those who have been divorced but wish to remarry in church are its
proposed guidelines as to the circumstances when this might happen. It
is an attempt to obtain general alignment whilst recognising that to
marry or not to marry remains the prerogative of the parish
priest.(See Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003)
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/papers/mcad.htm for fuller information"

Nick
Neil Davey
2004-06-10 13:49:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
The point is, Neil, we are all sinners.
I disagree with that being the point. We're certainly all sinners but
surely the head of a church should be someone who is trying their best
not to sin, not someone who is consciously sinning?

Cheers

Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Nick Milton
2004-06-10 14:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
The point is, Neil, we are all sinners.
I disagree with that being the point. We're certainly all sinners but
surely the head of a church should be someone who is trying their best
not to sin, not someone who is consciously sinning?
a) we dont know whether Prince Charles is trying his best or not

b) I think you need to unpack your logic a little. Try and unpack it
in a way that maintains consistency with the church being welcoming to
sinners - even active ones.

Nick
Michael J Davis
2004-06-08 14:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Nick Milton
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Surely there's a difference between him being in the church and
heading the Church of England? It's a matter of attempting to lead by
example.
Oh no! *Now* they'll all want to join!!

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Ken Down
2004-06-08 07:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
The difference is that this one is head of the church. Personally I think
that requires a higher standard of behaviour.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: ***@argonet.co.uk
Nick Milton
2004-06-08 18:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Down
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
The difference is that this one is head of the church. Personally I think
that requires a higher standard of behaviour.
Is he the spiritual head?
Lindsey
2004-06-09 01:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Milton
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:44 +0100, "David Lane"
Post by David Lane
Post by Jet Wood
Post by David Lane
Either we follow Biblical principles or we don't.
I think you'll find it impossible to discover one single human being
apart from Jesus of Nazareth who has managed to do so consistently in
all circumstances.
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head of
the Church in England?
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Well in that case I suppose that means that most of the people that enter
the doors of the church shouldn't be there!!
And there was me thinking that Jesus came to seek and to save that which was
lost.
Lindsey
Michael J Davis
2004-06-09 23:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
Post by Nick Milton
A sinner? In the church? Surely that would never be allowed?
Well in that case I suppose that means that most of the people that enter
the doors of the church shouldn't be there!!
And there was me thinking that Jesus came to seek and to save that which was
lost.
Well! He won't find them in *our* church! ;-)

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"The church is a hospital for sinners
rather than a social club for saints!"
<><
Neil Davey
2004-06-07 14:47:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:44 +0100 "David Lane"
Post by David Lane
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head of
the Church in England?
He wouldn't be, his wife died.

Cheers

Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Robert Marshall
2004-06-07 15:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
He wouldn't be, his wife died.
Has she? surely not?

;-)

Robert
--
Nothing fixes a thing so firmly in the memory as the wish
to forget it. -- Michel de Montaigne
David Lane
2004-06-07 16:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
Post by David Lane
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head of
the Church in England?
He wouldn't be, his wife died.
Cheers
Neil
But not before he'd committed adultery. Or is adultery absolved if your
husband/wife dies?
Nick Milton
2004-06-07 16:57:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:50 +0100, "David Lane"
Post by David Lane
Post by Neil Davey
Post by David Lane
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head
of
Post by Neil Davey
Post by David Lane
the Church in England?
He wouldn't be, his wife died.
Cheers
Neil
But not before he'd committed adultery. Or is adultery absolved if your
husband/wife dies?
He could be an ex blatant-adulterer

Any sin enters a different category when you stop doing it

Nick
Jo Bennett
2004-06-08 08:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Milton
He could be an ex blatant-adulterer
Any sin enters a different category when you stop doing it
Nick
If you are repentant!
Nick Milton
2004-06-08 10:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jo Bennett
Post by Nick Milton
He could be an ex blatant-adulterer
Any sin enters a different category when you stop doing it
If you are repentant!
You reckon?

Anyway, who are we to assess the degree of Prince Charles' repentance?

Thats between him, his spiritual advisor, and God

Nick
Jo Bennett
2004-06-08 10:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Milton
Anyway, who are we to assess the degree of Prince Charles' repentance?
Thats between him, his spiritual advisor, and God
I totally agree Nick, I wasn't meaning to judge him, I have no idea as to whether he has repented or not, and for this reason I will not comment on whether or not he should be allowed to marry/be head of the church. I was just meaning that I do believe you need to ASK for forgiveness to get it.

J
Nick Milton
2004-06-08 12:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jo Bennett
Post by Nick Milton
Anyway, who are we to assess the degree of Prince Charles' repentance?
Thats between him, his spiritual advisor, and God
I totally agree Nick, I wasn't meaning to judge him, I have no idea as to whether he has repented or not, and for this reason I will not comment on whether or not he should be allowed to marry/be head of the church. I was just meaning that I do believe you need to ASK for forgiveness to get it.
J
Something wrong with your linewrap, Jo

Conversely, I think forgiveness is ours for the taking, whether we
repent or not. However, the very act of accepting forgiveness, is
often in itself repentance, and there are many who will not accept the
forgiveness which is offered. (this last paragraph is a general point,
and not aimed specifically at the Prince Charles situation.

Welcome to the forum by the way; I am not sure i have seen you here
before?

nick
Jo Bennett
2004-06-08 12:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Milton
Conversely, I think forgiveness is ours for the taking, whether we
repent or not. However, the very act of accepting forgiveness, is
often in itself repentance, and there are many who will not accept the
forgiveness which is offered.
This is not a point of view that has been put to me before! Something to think about.
Post by Nick Milton
Welcome to the forum by the way; I am not sure i have seen you here
before?
Thanks Nick, fairly new, only posted 8 times according to the stats that came out :o)
Neil Davey
2004-06-08 12:14:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:50 +0100 "David Lane"
Post by David Lane
But not before he'd committed adultery. Or is adultery absolved if your
husband/wife dies?
I must admit that I don't follow the stories about the Royal Family
closely so don't know whether he just had a friendship with CPB before
Diana died or whether they were shacked up together.

Cheers

Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Steve Cleary
2004-06-08 13:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
Post by David Lane
But not before he'd committed adultery. Or is adultery absolved if your
husband/wife dies?
I must admit that I don't follow the stories about the Royal Family
closely so don't know whether he just had a friendship
Hah Ha Ha - friendship...well that's one way of putting it.
Post by Neil Davey
with CPB before
Diana died or whether they were shacked up together.
He admitted adultery before she died, but then again, this particular
sin is not new to the Windsors. Philip is known to be a serial
adulterer and there are allegations with substantial evidence of
Andrew and Edward not being Philip's, if republican websites are to be
believed. Perhaps there is such a thing as generational sin after all?
Brenda's ancestors are known for their various mistresses and
treacheries - her uncle was a traitor to his country, but it wouldn't
have done to hang the former king for treason.

As for Mrs Parker Bowles, she is a divorcee, having cheated on her
husband Andrew Parker Bowles - by having an affair with Prince
Charles. His constant cheating on Diana led her to attempt suicide. In
addition, Charles famously slept with Camilla on the eve of his
wedding to Diana.

Many have questioned whether a self-confessed liar and adulterer such
as Charles can ever be head of the Church of England, let alone head
of state of our Country, but then again, since we have a monarchy here
with no choice over who is Head of State or head of the CofE, it's
tough luck. Such are the people held up to be role models.....

Steve Cleary
Nick Milton
2004-06-08 15:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Cleary
He admitted adultery before she died, but then again, this particular
sin is not new to the Windsors. Philip is known to be a serial
adulterer and there are allegations with substantial evidence of
Andrew and Edward not being Philip's, if republican websites are to be
believed.
Gossip
Michael J Davis
2004-06-08 14:41:48 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com>, Steve Cleary
<***@nks.co.uk> writes

[snips allegations about the Royal Family]
Post by Steve Cleary
Steve Cleary
As a Christian, I would like to dissociate myself entirely from the
contents of the previous posting, which is speculative to say the least.
Even were it entirely true, we should not be repeating such detractions
here.

In my Bible, both calumny *and* detraction are sins.

Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
To earn the right to complain
ensure you are lavish with your praise.
<><
Ken Down
2004-06-09 06:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
I must admit that I don't follow the stories about the Royal Family
closely so don't know whether he just had a friendship with CPB before
Diana died or whether they were shacked up together.
I believe they were, as you put it, shacked up together, a fact which led to
the breakdown of her marriage.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: ***@argonet.co.uk
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:50 +0100 "David Lane"
Post by David Lane
But not before he'd committed adultery. Or is adultery absolved if your
husband/wife dies?
I must admit that I don't follow the stories about the Royal Family
closely so don't know whether he just had a friendship with CPB before
Diana died or whether they were shacked up together.
It clearly stated in the article that I was reading in the Mail on Sunday
that he was having an affair with CPB before Diana died. And if you go to
http://ladydiana.portal.dk3.com/article.php?sid=1089
you will see the following:-

Camilla Parker-Bowles

A milestone was reached last year in the relationship of the Prince of Wales
and Camilla Parker Bowles. At the 60th birthday party of ex-King Constantine
of Greece, the heir to the throne’s companion came face to face with Charles
’ mother, the Queen. The meeting, described as “relaxed and friendly,”
signalled that, while the Queen accepted the relationship, as Supreme
Governor of the Church of England she did not necessarily approve of it. It
seems that her son, who has said that his relationship with Mrs Parker
Bowles is “non-negotiable,” is back for good with the woman he first fell
for three decades ago.

Born Camilla Shand on July 17, 1947, in London, Charles’ companion was
educated in London and ‘finished off’ in Switzerland and France. The
granddaughter of Lord Ashcombe, she grew up on a country estate in Sussex,
spending much of her free time hunting – an activity she still enjoys today.

The self-confident beauty known as Milla met the shy, 25-year-old Prince at
Windsor Great Park in the early Seventies. Friendship grew into romance,
with Camilla often spending time in the Prince’s apartments in Buckingham
Palace. Feeling that Charles would never propose, Camilla married Army
officer Andrew Parker Bowles, shortly after the heir to the throne was sent
abroad on a naval mission. Camilla and Andrew have two children, Tom, born
in 1975, and Laura, born four years later.

But her friendship with the Prince endured, deepened even, and Camilla
became a constant in his life, even after his wedding in July 1981 to Lady
Diana Spencer. After it was revealed that the fairytale marriage was not
without its difficulties, Charles and Diana announced their separation in
December 1992. Camilla, still a trusted member of the Prince’s inner circle,
offered Charles the support and comfort he could find nowhere else.

The down-to-earth, outdoorsy woman was villified by the press after Charles
confirmed that he had committed adultery with Camilla while still married to
Diana. To Camilla’s credit, however, she never once told her side of the
story. Her marriage to Andrew ended in divorce in January 1995, with the
former Cavalry officer marrying Virginia Pitman just a year later.

After Diana’s tragic death in August 1997, Camilla retreated even further
from the public eye. However, it was Charles’ son William who extended the
olive branch to his father’s companion, inviting her to tea. At the request
of the young prince and his brother Harry, Mrs Parker Bowles accompanied
Charles and his sons on a Mediterranean cruise in August 1999.

It is rare that the couple undertake public engagements together, although a
Versace-clad Camilla accompanied her prince to a gala dinner on behalf of
his charity, the Prince’s Foundation, in June 2000. Although now yesterday’s
news, it still makes the front page of the newspapers when the two are
photographed side-by-side. Whether Charles marries Camilla remains to be
seen, but in order to do so, the British constitution would have to be
changed to allow a divorcee to marry the Defender of the Faith.


Lindsey
Post by Neil Davey
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Davey
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:42:44 +0100 "David Lane"
Post by David Lane
True. But do you want to be a blatant adulterer to be the official head of
the Church in England?
He wouldn't be, his wife died.
Yes but the adultery was committed when Diana was still alive, the only
thing her death did was to take away the fact that he is was not free to
remarry. As they had divorced (in 1996) he wasnt free to remarry under
canon law, but the fact that he is now a widower means he is now free to
remarry. The
issue is whether he is allowed by canon law to marry a divorcee and remain
heir to the throne.
Lindsey
Post by Neil Davey
Cheers
Neil
--
Deadspam e-mail address is a spamblock.
Please use ndavey _at_ postmaster dot co dot uk if you wish to contact me.
Dave Shield
2004-06-07 13:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Lane
My belief is that if there is a rule that the CHurch of England should not
marry divorcees how can it be different for someone who is going to be the
Head of the Church of England?
But *is* there such a rule?
The current policy would appear to be that agreed by General Synod in July
2002:

"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."

[http://www.england.anglican.org/papers/mcad.htm]

If that's the general rule, then how can it be different for someone who
is going to be the (local) Head of the Church of England?

Dave
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Shield
Post by David Lane
My belief is that if there is a rule that the CHurch of England should not
marry divorcees how can it be different for someone who is going to be the
Head of the Church of England?
But *is* there such a rule?
The current policy would appear to be that agreed by General Synod in July
"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."
[http://www.england.anglican.org/papers/mcad.htm]
If that's the general rule, then how can it be different for someone who
is going to be the (local) Head of the Church of England?
Dave
"the British constitution would have to be
changed to allow a divorcee to marry the Defender of the Faith"
Lindsey
Dave Shield
2004-06-10 12:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
Post by Dave Shield
If that's the general rule, then how can it be different for someone who
is going to be the (local) Head of the Church of England?
"the British constitution would have to be
changed to allow a divorcee to marry the Defender of the Faith"
Well, given that Britain doesn't strictly have a formal constitution,
it can't be quite as simple as that. Presumably you're suggesting
that there are some particular Acts of Parliament, or legal precedents
that would prevent this?

Given that the above phrase is in direct quotes, I was going to
ask where it came from, and what references this source gave to the
relevant acts, etc. But it looks from your other postings that
this is simply a quote from a web discussion, so I'd be wary about
putting too much weight on it as a statement of the current legal
position.


Your mention of Edward and Mrs. Simpson is probably more relevant.
A quick search on Google groups gives the general impression that
the constitutional problems were mostly related to the divorced
Mrs. Simpson becoming queen, rather than the marriage itself.
(see a recent thread "legal sense and nonsense" in
rec.games.chess.politics of all places!)

The alt.talk.royalty FAQ has an entry on the succession (Q35).
This gives the impression that the problem with Edward and
Mrs. Simpson was more to do with whether this was acceptable
to Parliament (who in certain circumstances have to give their
assent for the marriage to be legal).
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the attitude of the population
generally (and Parliament in particular) was somewhat more relaxed
about the idea now than it was seventy years ago.

That doesn't automatically make it "right" of course, but is
probably relevant when discussing the legal aspects.


But this question is probably best raised on alt.talk.royalty
where they'll be more attuned to the legal niceties of the matter.

Dave
Michael J Davis
2004-06-07 11:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.
I am not an Anglican, but I have to say I am disappointed by GC's recent
revelations. He says that he was 'Chaplain to the Royal family', but now
seems to think it's OK to let details of some of the confidential
discussions out of the bag. Merely the fact that he had confidential
discussions with Mrs P-B is, IMHO, a breach of confidence.
Post by Lindsey
Now unless I am missing something here, I thought that the heir to
throne and therefore technically the head of the Church of England
marry a divorcee, as in the case of King Edward VIII when he
divorcee Mrs Wallace Simpson, I believe he was actually exiled to
the remainder of his life after he was forced to abdicate in order
the woman he loved. Indeed I seem to remember that Princess Anne
her current husband in Scotland due to the change in the laws up
I understand that the guidance to the CoE re second marriages after
divorce is that it's up to the Vicar, but don't get involved in
marriages where one of the parties is responsible for the break-up of
the first marriage.
Post by Lindsey
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
Personally, I'd agree with your comment about Edward VIII, and certainly
keep said person clear of the Governorship of the CoE.

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Simon Crouch
2004-06-07 15:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.
I am not an Anglican, but I have to say I am disappointed by GC's recent
revelations. He says that he was 'Chaplain to the Royal family', but now
seems to think it's OK to let details of some of the confidential
discussions out of the bag. Merely the fact that he had confidential
discussions with Mrs P-B is, IMHO, a breach of confidence.
<conspiracy_theory> Maybe someone concerned has asked him to reveal certain
information. After all, there's an awful lot of "x has asked that it be made
known that..." these days. </conspiracy_theory>

all the best,

Simon.
Michael J Davis
2004-06-07 21:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Crouch
Post by Michael J Davis
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.
I am not an Anglican, but I have to say I am disappointed by GC's recent
revelations. He says that he was 'Chaplain to the Royal family', but now
seems to think it's OK to let details of some of the confidential
discussions out of the bag. Merely the fact that he had confidential
discussions with Mrs P-B is, IMHO, a breach of confidence.
<conspiracy_theory> Maybe someone concerned has asked him to reveal certain
information. After all, there's an awful lot of "x has asked that it be made
known that..." these days. </conspiracy_theory>
It's still a breach.

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Robert Marshall
2004-06-07 15:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael J Davis
I am not an Anglican, but I have to say I am disappointed by GC's
recent revelations. He says that he was 'Chaplain to the Royal
family', but now seems to think it's OK to let details of some of
the confidential discussions out of the bag. Merely the fact that he
had confidential discussions with Mrs P-B is, IMHO, a breach of
confidence.
ISTR Robert Runcie having people leaping up and down over similar
breaches of confidence with respect to C&D in his biography


Robert
--
Intelligence is nothing but analysed faith - Franz Schubert
Ken Down
2004-06-08 06:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster
Hi, welcome.
Post by Lindsey
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
There are a lot of strange gaps in your posting, as illustrated by the two
lines above. Is it poor typing or is there something wrong with your
computer?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
e-mail: ***@argonet.co.uk
Lindsey
2004-06-09 02:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Nothing wrong with computer or typing - suspect its the moderation process.
Lindsey

[deputy mod - I think you're right, many apologies; I've stopped using
Outlook Express now and that will solve everything]
Post by Ken Down
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster
Hi, welcome.
Post by Lindsey
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
There are a lot of strange gaps in your posting, as illustrated by the two
lines above. Is it poor typing or is there something wrong with your
computer?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.diggingsonline.com
Dave Goode
2004-06-10 07:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lindsey
[deputy mod - I think you're right, many apologies; I've stopped using
Outlook Express now and that will solve everything]
...except the top-posting: that's up to you ;-)

Dave
--
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/
Lindsey
2004-06-09 01:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Ok I seem to have stirred up a bit of discussion, thank you all fro your
thoughts. I think the missing words etc, is probably due to the moderation
process. :-)
Lindsey
Post by Lindsey
I am a new poster, and found this group courtesy of the Ely.org
of the Church of England to which I subscribe.
I would like to ask the opinion of the group here about the story
the Mail today about an apology by the ex arch-bishop of
Rev'd George Carey apparently apologising to Mrs Camilla Parker
the article it would appear that the Rt Rev'd gentlemen seemed to
that it is OK for the Prince of Wales to marry Mrs Parker Bowles
he acknowledges his sinful ways.
Now unless I am missing something here, I thought that the heir to
throne and therefore technically the head of the Church of England
marry a divorcee, as in the case of King Edward VIII when he
divorcee Mrs Wallace Simpson, I believe he was actually exiled to
the remainder of his life after he was forced to abdicate in order
the woman he loved. Indeed I seem to remember that Princess Anne
her current husband in Scotland due to the change in the laws up
So how come the Rt Rev'd is now saying its OK?? has something chan
it ok for Prince Charles to marry Mrs Parker Bowles.
Loading...