Charles and Camilla

[KnittingOwl]

15 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

But also people questioning how Charles is then eligible to be the head of the Church, for obvious reasons. Does he get a special pass?

I guess he gets a special pass to be head of the church. But, Charles and Camilla never got married in the church. Their wedding was only a civil one with a dedication in the church. 

[rosamundi]

On 1/20/2023 at 5:15 PM, Mama Mia said:

I’m seeing a lot of anger online regarding the Church of England’s recent statement that they will not perform same sex marriages, and that their teaching is that “marriage is between one man and one woman for life”

Obviously ironic considering the origins of said church. But also people questioning how Charles is then eligible to be the head of the Church, for obvious reasons. Does he get a special pass? I understand churches generally allow members that don’t live by their teachings — but being the prime figure head representing the church seems like it would be a stretch. 

Even if you don't believe in divorce, Charles had been a widower for seven years by the time he married Camilla and even the strictest teaching would be that once one partner of the marriage dies, the other partner is free to marry again. I'm not aware of any denomination, apart from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who require married priests who become widowers after ordination to remain celibate, who would expect a person to remain single after becoming a widow or widower.

Religious people of my acquaintance were more concerned that he was marrying the woman he'd committed adultery with during his first marriage, and that was inappropriate for the titular head of the Church of England, not that he was marrying again after becoming a widower.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

44 minutes ago, rosamundi said:

Even if you don't believe in divorce, Charles had been a widower for seven years by the time he married Camilla and even the strictest teaching would be that once one partner of the marriage dies, the other partner is free to marry again. I'm not aware of any denomination, apart from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who require married priests who become widowers after ordination to remain celibate, who would expect a person to remain single after becoming a widow or widower.

Religious people of my acquaintance were more concerned that he was marrying the woman he'd committed adultery with during his first marriage, and that was inappropriate for the titular head of the Church of England, not that he was marrying again after becoming a widower.

The general opposition to their marriage was about the adultery, but they couldn’t be married in the church because Camilla’s ex-husband is still alive. 

[Jackie3]

On 1/22/2023 at 8:24 AM, rosamundi said:

Even if you don't believe in divorce, Charles had been a widower for seven years by the time he married Camilla and even the strictest teaching would be that once one partner of the marriage dies, the other partner is free to marry again.

Free to marry someone who is single, true. But if you don't believe in divorce, Camilla is still "married" to her ex.

It sounds like Charles gets a pass as head of the Church, but the actual church members are expected to follow the rules. 

[prayawaythefundie]

6 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

It sounds like Charles gets a pass as head of the Church, but the actual church members are expected to follow the rules. 

Very true for pretty much any church and any head of church. Heads and leaders make the rules, only regular members must follow them. It has always been a big and valid point of criticism towards any organised religion.

Edited January 24, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[Mama Mia]

38 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Very true for pretty much any church and any head of church. Heads and leaders make the rules, only regular members must follow them. It has always been a big and valid point of criticism towards any organised religion.

It always blows me away how the U.S. is commonly known for its religious extremists, but so many presumably less religiously conservative countries have actual official state religions, publicly funded religious schools, prayer in school, rules over who the head of state can marry based on religion etc… so interesting.

 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Very true for pretty much any church and any head of church. Heads and leaders make the rules, only regular members must follow them. It has always been a big and valid point of criticism towards any organised religion.

What? Where I come from, that would be called out as hypocrisy. Pastors, rabbis, and priests follow the same rules as the congregation. They aren't allowed to be above the rules.

[klein_roeschen]

58 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

It always blows me away how the U.S. is commonly known for its religious extremists, but so many presumably less religiously conservative countries have actual official state religions, publicly funded religious schools, prayer in school, rules over who the head of state can marry based on religion etc… so interesting.

 

Not a full sociology study, but maybe an explanation:
The religious structures in Europe are here for centuries and where put upon the citizens for centuries. Your rulers religion was your religion and if he switched from catholic to lutheran you no choice in choosing your "new" religious affiliation. Thats why so many oppressed religious groups emigrated to north america starting in the late 17th century. A starting in the 18th century finally religious freedom laws became a thing, but the historical grown power of the church stayed intact and with changing laws their priviliges changed, but where still protected and are today, at least here in Germany. And over time your membership of a church became less of a religious and more of a cultural thing where you attend church at christmas and maybe if you where invited to a church wedding. And a catholic or lutheran church run school in Germany still has to follow the official curriculum and are more seen like private schools in the US. And more and more people leave the church forever to save the church tax. And a really stark difference between the US and Europe, the lower the socioeconomic class, the less likely a person is member of a christian church or ever where.

[prayawaythefundie]

In many European countries big Christian churches still have a lot of privileges and money. As @klein_roeschen explained, money is even collected for them via taxes in Germany. (That‘s for members only though. You can leave and they stop taxing you.)

However, everyday life for most Europeans is less affected by their teachings than it seems to be in the US. They have less influence on legislation.
 

So many people here are cultural christians. Many catholics I know are openly pro-choice and supporters of gay marriage for example. When I left the Lutheran church a few years ago, nothing really changed for me, except I don‘t have to pay church tax anymore.

From a European‘s point of view secular US citizens‘ lives seem a lot more controlled by religious (christian) extremists than our own.

[louisa05]

8 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

Not a full sociology study, but maybe an explanation:
The religious structures in Europe are here for centuries and where put upon the citizens for centuries. Your rulers religion was your religion and if he switched from catholic to lutheran you no choice in choosing your "new" religious affiliation. Thats why so many oppressed religious groups emigrated to north america starting in the late 17th century. A starting in the 18th century finally religious freedom laws became a thing, but the historical grown power of the church stayed intact and with changing laws their priviliges changed, but where still protected and are today, at least here in Germany. And over time your membership of a church became less of a religious and more of a cultural thing where you attend church at christmas and maybe if you where invited to a church wedding. And a catholic or lutheran church run school in Germany still has to follow the official curriculum and are more seen like private schools in the US. And more and more people leave the church forever to save the church tax. And a really stark difference between the US and Europe, the lower the socioeconomic class, the less likely a person is member of a christian church or ever where.

Additionally,American  religious historians have theorized that lack of a state religion is why religion is not only more diverse in the U.S (obviously)?but is also why it is continues to thrive more than in Europe. 

[prayawaythefundie]

9 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

What? Where I come from, that would be called out as hypocrisy. Pastors, rabbis, and priests follow the same rules as the congregation. They aren't allowed to be above the rules.

If you think priests follow the rules, you must have missed more than one sexual abuse scandal in the catholic church. Of course it is called out but it still happens and many of them have gotten away with it.

[hoipolloi]

9 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

Thats why so many oppressed religious groups emigrated to north america starting in the late 17th century. 

Will you take them back now, please?  We donʻt need them any more. Thanks!

More seriously, I had a college history professor who opined that Catholicism in the US was shaped more by Irish Catholicism than the continental European RC church. This gave the US a RC church that is hyper-focused on extreme piety, obedience to religious authorities, sexual controls, and overall a more powerful, daily influence on parishionersʻ lives.

Iʻm not even a Christian much less a Catholic but this made sense to me.  

[Coconut Flan]

Someone tell me Charles really isn't going to do this.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/466877-king-charles-shocking-support-to-prince-andrew-spells-disaster-bloody-stupid

[louisa05]

47 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Someone tell me Charles really isn't going to do this.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/466877-king-charles-shocking-support-to-prince-andrew-spells-disaster-bloody-stupid

I highly doubt it. 

[viii]

It wouldn’t surprise me. 

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, viii said:

It wouldn’t surprise me. 

Me neither. Forgiveness is a virtue but Charles‘s excessive leniency will neither serve him nor the monarchy.

[viii]

It could go either way. Charles is notoriously selfish and has a strong desire for nothing to overshadow him and his birthright. However, the royal family is also notorious for closing ranks around their own, no matter what they’ve done. So, it could go either way imo. 

[tabitha2]

Whatever he does is going to be Wrong! The end of the Monarchy! What a terrible King! To some people. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by tabitha2

[hoipolloi]

3 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Someone tell me Charles really isn't going to do this.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/466877-king-charles-shocking-support-to-prince-andrew-spells-disaster-bloody-stupid

Would like to say this isnʻt happening but wonʻt be surprised if does. The BRF, including C3, have been far more upset about the negative PR that Andrew has brought them than the serious allegations of sexual abuse and predation leveled against him.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Andrew is conducting a non-stop nagging campaign in private to be allowed to have the HRH restored and make money. In that context, anything to shut him up probably looks good.

 

[noseybutt]

Just now, tabitha2 said:

 Whstever he does is going to Wrong! The end of the Monarchy! To some people. 

Meh. The monarchy is corrupt, both by definition and by history. People should be calling it out.

It won’t end it though.

5 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Would like to say this isnʻt happening but wonʻt be surprised if does. The BRF, including C3, have been far more upset about the negative PR that Andrew has brought them than the serious allegations of sexual abuse and predation leveled against him.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Andrew is conducting a non-stop nagging campaign in private to be allowed to have the HRH restored and make money. In that context, anything to shut him up probably looks good.

 

Or, this.

I don’t think the BRF knows what they stand for in terms morals and values. So when accused of racism, for example, there is no deep soul searching only an effort of avoiding an image of being racist. Same for sex trafficking. Sure, the idea of sex trafficking is upsetting to them but not as an institutional value. So then it becomes more about managing the image. 

 

[prayawaythefundie]

As he gets older, Charles seems desperate to be on good terms with his family.

[Jackie3]

4 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Whatever he does is going to be Wrong! The end of the Monarchy! What a terrible King! To some people. 

I don't think it will be the end of the monarchy. But it will get them a lot of bad press.

Only 7% of all Britons think positively of Prince Andrew. (Can't imagine who those people are)

So from a PR standpoint, this is unwise. Who knows what the future will bring? But no, I don't think the monarchy is going to end tomorrow because of this.

Perhaps the royals should consider that only 31% of British young adults aged 18-24 think that the monarchy should continue at all! These young adults are the future, and  a third of them want a republic.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Jackie3

[noseybutt]

4 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

As he gets older, Charles seems desperate to be on good terms with his family.

But this would be normal, yes? To want peace and affection within your family?

The dysfunction is that, as monarch, his duty is first to the institution. Which means reaching out to Andrew will tarnish his image (and probably cost taxpayers hecka money).

 

 

[SoSoNosy]

It is completely normal, but his mother didn't allow herself the luxury of total peace and you know Andrew was in her ear nonstop.

[tabitha2]

But this is not 1523. The King can’t legally force Andrew to desist or Exile or put him away. He already has had  his Royal privileges and employment taken.