OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 04:24:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Prince William has chosen a new bride!  (Read 4329 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« on: November 16, 2010, 12:25:48 PM »

This post split off from  Pope Leo and the Future Apostasy of Rome as an answer to this comment by Irish Hermit:
Btw, have none of you over there noticed that we have our future queen?  Prince William has chosen a bride.   Half our TV programmes have been displaced to being us live news and commentary via the BBC.


Schultz, Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator


All hail his Protestant Brittanic Majesty King William IV, Defender of the Faith.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 12:37:26 PM by Schultz » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2010, 12:41:38 PM »


All hail his Protestant Brittanic Majesty King William IV, Defender of the Faith.

Speaking as a New Zealander who is a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and one day of His Majesty King William, I find your remark scurrilous and offensive.  Just my personal reaction, mind you.  I suppose it's possible you are converting to Protestantism and the remark is in fact high praise.

Go back and see how we handled the situation when Benedict XVI was elected.  Our reaction was *nothing* like yours here!
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2010, 12:53:02 PM »

This is old news mate.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Forgive my sins.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2010, 12:55:47 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2010, 12:59:05 PM »

This is old news mate.  Roll Eyes

News reached us in New Zealand about 6 hours ago.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2010, 01:00:57 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
They should keep "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" All other parts should go. Cool
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2010, 01:05:05 PM »

The Text of the Service of Coronation

http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html

It is beautiful and profound and with a few needed changes would be a very appropriate service for the holy mystery of the Anointing and Crowning of a Monarch who was Orthodox.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2010, 01:09:48 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
They should keep "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" All other parts should go. Cool

The references are specific because the British Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  It is she who gives the final approval for the election of bishops - as was done by the Byzantine Emperors and Russian Tsars.  It is she who must grant approval to changes to liturgical texts - all under advisement of course.
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2010, 01:15:06 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

Prince Charles has toyed with the idea of changing the oath to read "defender of "faith".
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/evangelical.alliance.officially.call.on.prince.charles.to.be.defender.of.the.faith/8082.htm

One wonders if there will be an Anglican church left for Prince William to lead.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2010, 01:22:30 PM »

Perhaps there will, though by that time, he might be crowned by someone like this:



Though if you had to have a lady Archbishop of Canterbury, I would go for Geraldine Granger  Wink

Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2010, 08:36:59 PM »

By the time he becomes king, I expect this part of his coronation oath may change:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
They should keep "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" All other parts should go. Cool

The references are specific because the British Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  It is she who gives the final approval for the election of bishops - as was done by the Byzantine Emperors and Russian Tsars.  It is she who must grant approval to changes to liturgical texts - all under advisement of course.

Thank you...I'm not a moron...
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 08:37:41 PM by celticfan1888 » Logged

Forgive my sins.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,013


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2010, 08:43:26 PM »

All hail his Protestant Brittanic Majesty King William IV, Defender of the Faith.

Would he become William V (assuming that his father becomes Charles III upon accession)?  William IV (who came before Victoria) was brother to George IV.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2010, 08:55:24 PM »

^ Yes, he would become William V.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2010, 09:00:36 PM »

Like William IV, William V is likely to be older upon his accession. His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2010, 09:30:30 PM »

His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.

Assuming, of course, that Charles decides to be King when Mum passes.  I don't think he'd renounce his crown without ever wearing it, but it's theoretically in the field of possibility, no?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 09:30:49 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2010, 09:32:38 PM »

His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.

Assuming, of course, that Charles decides to be King when Mum passes.  I don't think he'd renounce his crown without ever wearing it, but it's theoretically in the field of possibility, no?

Yes, possible, but extremely unlikely, don't you think? This isn't 1936.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2010, 09:41:20 PM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2010, 10:29:55 PM »

Charles, provided he ascends to the throne, will be the death of the monarchy...maybe not instantly but he'll go a long ways towards removing any credibility from left in the institution. If he were smart, he'd step aside and allow his son, who will presumably still be a relatively young and popular prince when the time comes, ascend to the throne. But his past actions have demonstrated that he's probably not that smart.

This isn't 1500, the monarch does not hold his/her position because it is the will of God that they rule England, they hold their position because the English people think it's neat and sophisticated to have a monarch. Once that popular devotion is gone, the end of the monarchy is only a referendum away. Though I must say, it would be most interesting to see England become a Republic while the monarchy is still the head of several other states...I don't know how that would play out.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 10:33:15 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2010, 10:57:59 PM »

His grandmother is still going strong, let along the Prince of Wales.

Assuming, of course, that Charles decides to be King when Mum passes.  I don't think he'd renounce his crown without ever wearing it, but it's theoretically in the field of possibility, no?

Yes, possible, but extremely unlikely, don't you think? This isn't 1936.
Extremely unlikely is an understatement. The sovereign can't just quit. And yes, Charles automatically becomes king on the death of his mother. Any change in succession requires an act of Parliament, and since Charles will become king of sixteen realms, it would require the concerted action of all sixteen. In Canada alone, such action would constitutionally require the consent of not only the Parliament in Ottawa, but all ten provincial legislatures.
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2010, 11:08:50 PM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2010, 12:29:56 AM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.

The guy's a worthless excuse for a human being...he commands no respect or admiration and in this day and age his ancestry does not make up for his manifest deficiencies. He will most likely become King, but will diminish the institution of the monarchy in the process and accelerate the inevitable progress of Great Britain towards republicanism...not that that's a bad thing; maybe then they could actually have an executive with some real power and not a figurehead that mindlessly rubber stamps any act parliament throws his way. A king that cannot stand up to his parliament is no king, he's nothing but the nation's chief fool.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:31:54 AM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2010, 12:35:22 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2010, 12:38:45 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Yeah, heaven forbid their kids not have hemophilia, what a shame that would be to all England. Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2010, 12:43:32 AM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.

The guy's a worthless excuse for a human being...he commands no respect or admiration and in this day and age his ancestry does not make up for his manifest deficiencies. He will most likely become King, but will diminish the institution of the monarchy in the process and accelerate the inevitable progress of Great Britain towards republicanism...not that that's a bad thing; maybe then they could actually have an executive with some real power and not a figurehead that mindlessly rubber stamps any act parliament throws his way. A king that cannot stand up to his parliament is no king, he's nothing but the nation's chief fool.
Far be it for me to argue with you in your area of expertise, but provoking fights to prove something doesn't make a king.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2010, 12:52:17 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2010, 12:55:19 AM »

^ Quite true.  I think it would be a brilliant stroke, though, for him, his legacy, and for the Commonwealth Nations; he could avoid the whole messy affair of him ascending the throne with his former mistress, and instead seem benevolent, putting a seemingly better man on the throne, who will likely rule a long time - and he will continue to live his royal lifestyle, retire, and enjoy some relative peace.
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair. Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress. The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job.

The guy's a worthless excuse for a human being...he commands no respect or admiration and in this day and age his ancestry does not make up for his manifest deficiencies. He will most likely become King, but will diminish the institution of the monarchy in the process and accelerate the inevitable progress of Great Britain towards republicanism...not that that's a bad thing; maybe then they could actually have an executive with some real power and not a figurehead that mindlessly rubber stamps any act parliament throws his way. A king that cannot stand up to his parliament is no king, he's nothing but the nation's chief fool.
Far be it for me to argue with you in your area of expertise, but provoking fights to prove something doesn't make a king.

So you're telling me that no monarch has had a viable reason to veto an act of Parliament since Queen Anne in 1707? I'm sorry, but no legislative body is that perfect, it's obvious that the monarchs have yielded to the whims of parliament for political reasons. The last president we had who didn't veto a bill was James Garfield (who was only president for 6 1/2 months)...it's something that, in a functioning governmental system, should happen with a somewhat regular frequency. If you're going to be king...be king. Otherwise, step aside so the country can elect an executive with the balls to actually stand up to the legislature when appropriate.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 01:00:06 AM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2010, 01:42:37 AM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2010, 02:35:08 AM »

Charles, provided he ascends to the throne, will be the death of the monarchy...maybe not instantly but he'll go a long ways towards removing any credibility from left in the institution. If he were smart, he'd step aside and allow his son, who will presumably still be a relatively young and popular prince when the time comes, ascend to the throne. But his past actions have demonstrated that he's probably not that smart.

This isn't 1500, the monarch does not hold his/her position because it is the will of God that they rule England, they hold their position because the English people think it's neat and sophisticated to have a monarch. Once that popular devotion is gone, the end of the monarchy is only a referendum away. Though I must say, it would be most interesting to see England become a Republic while the monarchy is still the head of several other states...I don't know how that would play out.

England will always have a Monarch. Tell me something, why do Atheists always want to kill their Monarchs? Also, why are you being disrespectful to Prince Charles? Royalty deserve our respect.

Just as bees obey their queen and Ants theirs, we have to obey, honor, and respect ours!
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 02:39:11 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2010, 02:44:27 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Yeah, heaven forbid their kids not have hemophilia, what a shame that would be to all England. Roll Eyes

There are more than enough German nobles lying around, he doesn't have to marry a close relation.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2010, 02:53:00 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 02:58:00 AM by GabrieltheCelt » Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2010, 03:04:16 AM »

Charles, provided he ascends to the throne, will be the death of the monarchy...maybe not instantly but he'll go a long ways towards removing any credibility from left in the institution. If he were smart, he'd step aside and allow his son, who will presumably still be a relatively young and popular prince when the time comes, ascend to the throne. But his past actions have demonstrated that he's probably not that smart.

This isn't 1500, the monarch does not hold his/her position because it is the will of God that they rule England, they hold their position because the English people think it's neat and sophisticated to have a monarch. Once that popular devotion is gone, the end of the monarchy is only a referendum away. Though I must say, it would be most interesting to see England become a Republic while the monarchy is still the head of several other states...I don't know how that would play out.

England will always have a Monarch. Tell me something, why do Atheists always want to kill their Monarchs? Also, why are you being disrespectful to Prince Charles? Royalty deserve our respect.

Just as bees obey their queen and Ants theirs, we have to obey, honor, and respect ours!

My ancestors who fought king Georgie's boys, whipped their sorry butts, and sent them back to England crying weren't atheists, just better men than the king or any his minions; the ideal of liberty and democracy has nothing to do with religion. If the king were truly worthy to be king, he and his men would have performed better on the field of battle.

You may have a monarch and be bound to 'obey, honor, and respect' it, our success on the field of battle and the treaty we forced the king to sign in defeat and humiliation says otherwise. Of course, if the monarch disagrees, they're free to send their forces over here and attempt to retake these colonies...could be fun.

As for my attitude towards Chuckie, it's quite simple, he's a worthless P.O.S. Respect is something that is hard earned and given to very, very few...he ain't even come close.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2010, 03:08:33 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Yeah, heaven forbid their kids not have hemophilia, what a shame that would be to all England. Roll Eyes

There are more than enough German nobles lying around, he doesn't have to marry a close relation.

They dishonored themselves by being defeated in battle, their failure to die in battle or commit suicide pretty much negates any claim to nobility. At least the Nazi leadership had the common courtesy of blowing their brains out rather than being captured.

Oh, wait, that's a Japanese custom...but still, if you want to claim to be higher born than everyone else, I think it's fair to hold you to it.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 03:09:11 AM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2010, 04:00:11 AM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2010, 10:58:51 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.

According to the Church of England, anyway.

Outside the matter of his women, I do like the Prince of Wales.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2010, 11:09:02 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!

Nár laga Dia do lámh !


(May God not weaken your hand!)
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2010, 11:10:13 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.

According to the Church of England, anyway.

Outside the matter of his women, I do like the Prince of Wales.

Well, since his first wife is dead and he married Camilla after her death, she's his wife, period.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2010, 11:23:39 AM »

The Crown Prince ascending to the throne alongside his mistress is certainly no worse than his son marrying a commoner.

Camilla Windsor is no longer Charles Windsor's mistress, she is legally his wife.

According to the Church of England, anyway.
And anywhere else in the world that recognizes a marriage legally solemnized in the UK.

Quote
Outside the matter of his women, I do like the Prince of Wales.
Marital infidelity is not to be condoned. However, HRH the Duchess of Cornwall has impressed me very much in the way that she has undertaken her royal duties. It is easy to find the numbers of charities, armed forces units, and organizations that she supports in one way or another. She very recently accepted an invitation to become the patron of Dundurn Castle in Hamilton, Ontario. She may not have the glamour of Diana, but she seems to have appropriated the car rental company slogan: "We try harder".
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,847



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2010, 11:29:19 AM »

Translated by Google, but still readable:


Is an unusual situation to arise in Brazil and absurd: if the Prince Charles arrives to take possession of the English throne, he will win by extension the command of the largest Indian reservations in the Amazon. Paranoia? No, it's fact.

An NGO, known worldwide is commanded by Prince Charles SURVIVAL and, absurdly, controls with an iron fist the Yanomami Reserve on the border with Venezuela, and the head of cahorro in the Colombian border, which are the world's largest reserves. And not only these two reservations, which are controlled by the NGO's prince Charles. For all bookings and approve future homolagadas has strong representation of NGOs from the future king of England.

It is good to point out another absurdity: in these reserves, Brazil does not come, and worse, even the Army was barred by the NGO, in collusion with Brazilian NGOs CIR and CIMI. Reserves under control of the future king of England does not allow any person of nationality between South American, only individuals of the European community or the U.S.. If the Prince Charles comes to the throne in England he will have in its hands the control (through the Survival) of the richest deposits of uranium, niobium, gold, diamonds in the world, and indirectly influence decisively on the political destiny of nations Indians.

Another point is absurd that this NGO owned by the future King of England recently barred a Brazilian evangelical missionaries. For that she had the support of the Brazilian Bishops, Catholic organizations through the CIR, and CIMI CONSOLATA. Besides the Brazilian attack on democracy by preventing the free transit of evangelical missionaries of Brazilian nationality, the foreign NGO had the help of leading religious institution in Brazil: CNBB.


http://www.artigonal.com/politica-artigos/principe-charles-o-rei-sombra-da-amazonia-442538.html

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2010, 12:50:34 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:52:23 PM by bogdan » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,847



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 17, 2010, 12:55:08 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?

I don't know much about the regulations involving succession in the royalty, but if she reaches a certain advanced age and is considered unable to  perform her duties properly or not without problems for her own health, can't she be compulsorily "retired"?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 12:55:55 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2010, 01:55:15 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?

I don't know much about the regulations involving succession in the royalty, but if she reaches a certain advanced age and is considered unable to  perform her duties properly or not without problems for her own health, can't she be compulsorily "retired"?
No. It's a lifetime (quite literally) job. As she ages, the Prince of Wales and other family members will take on additional responsibilities. If she becomes totally incapacitated, a Regency would be appointed whereby the PoW would perform all of her duties in her name.
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2010, 02:24:06 PM »

I think Queen Elizabeth will outlive Charles just to keep him off the throne. Oh yes, she will live to be 150 if that's what it takes.

what a macabre form of government. imagine hearing people say they hope you die prematurely so your mom can outlive you.

I didn't say I wanted Charles to die prematurely. I said Queen Elizabeth will resolve to live to an extraordinarily old age. I did not intend it to be taken that way, as I wish premature death on no one.

I was kidding by making an absurd statement—though her mom lived to be 101, so who knows?

I don't know much about the regulations involving succession in the royalty, but if she reaches a certain advanced age and is considered unable to  perform her duties properly or not without problems for her own health, can't she be compulsorily "retired"?

Retirement can't be forced on her, not really at least. As it stands right now, her and Prince Phillip have taken on less functions, with other members of the Royal family taking on more responsibility. If she lives to a great age, I would simply expect Prince Charles to take on even more responsibility.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,155


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: November 17, 2010, 05:12:27 PM »

What are the responsibilities of the English Monarch?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #43 on: November 17, 2010, 05:48:17 PM »

What are the responsibilities of the British Monarch?

The monarch's personal prerogatives are:
 - To refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly considered in 1910, but George V later changed his mind.
 - To appoint a Prime Minister of her [his] own choosing. This was last done in Britain in 1963 when Elizabeth II appointed Sir Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister, on the advice of outgoing Harold Macmillan.
 - To dismiss a Prime Minister and his or her Government on the Monarch's own authority. This was last done in Britain in 1834 by King William IV.
 - To refuse the Royal Assent, last exercised by Queen Anne when she withheld Royal Assent from the Scottish Militia Bill 1708.
 - To refuse the "Queen's [King's] Consent", where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues—including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia—or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament. In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. It became a de facto war.

She also has:

 - The right to be consulted;
 - The right to advise;
 - The right to warn.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 05:55:45 PM by John of the North » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2010, 05:50:28 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative_(United_Kingdom)
Logged
ComingHome
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Yes
Posts: 302


« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2010, 05:57:10 PM »

I have heard that Charles will most probably not take the name "Charles III" because of the history of the first two Charleses.  Instead he will take the name George VII in honor of his grandfather.  Has anyone heard anything about this?
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #46 on: November 17, 2010, 06:03:22 PM »

Retirement can't be forced on her, not really at least. As it stands right now, her and Prince Phillip have taken on less functions, with other members of the Royal family taking on more responsibility. If she lives to a great age, I would simply expect Prince Charles to take on even more responsibility.

Just to clarify. When I wrote this I was primarily referring to such things as handing out medals, opening new buildings, attending functions etc. There are reasons why you don't see Her Majesty wearing digicamo and trudging around the Afghan. You do see the Crown Prince handing out more medals than he used to, but at the same time the Queen still receives the credentials of foreign dignitaries personally.

When it comes to exercising her constitutional responsibilities, theoretically she could appoint one of her sons to do such things. Whether she will or not is her choice.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2010, 06:05:21 PM »

I have heard that Charles will most probably not take the name "Charles III" because of the history of the first two Charleses.  Instead he will take the name George VII in honor of his grandfather.  Has anyone heard anything about this?

I have also heard this.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2010, 10:20:28 PM »

Extremely unlikely is an understatement. The sovereign can't just quit.

Actually, yes, the sovereign can abdicate the throne, leaving it to the next-in-line.  Hence, Edward VIII's transition (because of his desire to marry someone twice-divorced) to his brother Albert who became George VI.

And yes, Charles automatically becomes king on the death of his mother. Any change in succession requires an act of Parliament, and since Charles will become king of sixteen realms, it would require the concerted action of all sixteen. In Canada alone, such action would constitutionally require the consent of not only the Parliament in Ottawa, but all ten provincial legislatures.

I think you're over-stating the case.  Yes, this is how it happened with Edward, but I don't think it would be a lengthy process, and I don't think there would be objections.

Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair.

I thought I was being accurate.

Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress.

I wasn't making a moral judgment that William is a better man.

The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job. 

If by his "marital unfaithfulness" you mean his public cheating on (someone he had married in front of 750 million people between the live audience and TV), then divorce from arguably the most popular member of the royal family, then seeming "cold fish" attitude at the time of her death, then sure, he was "unfaithful."  I don't necessarily consider him, "totally unfit," but I think he would immediately be one of the least-popular monarchs in recent English history, and would likely lead to further erosion of the monarchy (and, likely, it's abandonment in other nations of the Commonwealth).  Hence, my comment that if he were smart he would abdicate/renounce, and allow his relatively-popular (and relatively untainted) son rule.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2010, 10:29:15 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #49 on: November 18, 2010, 02:23:46 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!

Nár laga Dia do lámh !


(May God not weaken your hand!)


Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh!

(May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead!)  Smiley

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #50 on: November 18, 2010, 02:35:55 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!

Nár laga Dia do lámh !


(May God not weaken your hand!)


Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh!

(May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead!)  Smiley



Ironically, Sinn Fein's original platform called for a dual monarchy. Oops. Tongue
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2010, 02:59:46 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!

Nár laga Dia do lámh !


(May God not weaken your hand!)


Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh!

(May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead!)  Smiley



Ironically, Sinn Fein's original platform called for a dual monarchy.
Actually, no.  An Conradh Angla-Éireannach (The Anglo-Irish Treaty) was not accepted by many of the early Sinn Fein members.  You're confusing Sinn Fein with Fianna Fáil, the party that Eamon de Valera created in favor of The Anglo-Irish Treaty of which you speak.  If I said anything more, I'd get slapped with a warning.  And since I'm already on warning, I reckon I'll stop now.

Oops. Tongue
Don't be too hard on yourself.  It's a long, troubled history. Smiley
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2010, 03:16:16 AM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!

Nár laga Dia do lámh !


(May God not weaken your hand!)


Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh!

(May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead!)  Smiley



Ironically, Sinn Fein's original platform called for a dual monarchy.
Actually, no.  An Conradh Angla-Éireannach (The Anglo-Irish Treaty) was not accepted by many of the early Sinn Fein members.  You're confusing Sinn Fein with Fianna Fáil, the party that Eamon de Valera created in favor of The Anglo-Irish Treaty of which you speak.  If I said anything more, I'd get slapped with a warning.  And since I'm already on warning, I reckon I'll stop now.

Oops. Tongue
Don't be too hard on yourself.  It's a long, troubled history. Smiley

"Though not a monarchist himself, Griffith advocated such an approach for the Anglo-Irish relationship, namely that Ireland should become a separate kingdom alongside Great Britain, the two forming a dual monarchy with a shared monarch but separate governments, as it was thought this solution would be more palatable to the British."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Griffith

Wink

(This was prior to the Anglo-Irish Treaty)
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 03:17:11 AM by John of the North » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2010, 03:38:24 AM »

Congratulations to them.  I wish them the best and hope that God blesses their marriage and guides Prince William. 
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2010, 09:50:34 AM »

Extremely unlikely is an understatement. The sovereign can't just quit.

Actually, yes, the sovereign can abdicate the throne, leaving it to the next-in-line.  Hence, Edward VIII's transition (because of his desire to marry someone twice-divorced) to his brother Albert who became George VI.

And yes, Charles automatically becomes king on the death of his mother. Any change in succession requires an act of Parliament, and since Charles will become king of sixteen realms, it would require the concerted action of all sixteen. In Canada alone, such action would constitutionally require the consent of not only the Parliament in Ottawa, but all ten provincial legislatures.

I think you're over-stating the case.  Yes, this is how it happened with Edward, but I don't think it would be a lengthy process, and I don't think there would be objections.
Unfortunately, you are unaware of Canadian constitutional issues. To begin tinkering with constitutional matters such as this would not be easy in many Commonwealth nations; it would likely raise the matter of replacing the constitutional monarchy with some undefined system. Our friends in Australia have already gone through that.

In the case of Edward VIII, the political will was there to remove him from his position. I'm sure you are aware of the persistent rumours of his dallying with the Nazis. His wish to be married to a twice-divorced American made the abdication socially desirable as well.

Quote
Father, I must disagree. Your reference to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall as "his former mistress" is unfair.

I thought I was being accurate.

Especially when you refer to William as "a seemingly better man" although he and Miss Middleton have cohabited, thus making her his mistress.

I wasn't making a moral judgment that William is a better man.
To express your dislike of Charles, you mentioned only his morality. What is it that makes William seem to you a better man?

Quote
The Prince of Wales is an intelligent and accomplished man with a strong sense of duty. What some have described as eccentricities has proven to be indication of a man a bit ahead of his time - note his work with the environment and architecture. While I do not condone his marital unfaithfulness, that in itself is not reason to consider him unfit for the job. 

If by his "marital unfaithfulness" you mean his public cheating on (someone he had married in front of 750 million people between the live audience and TV), then divorce from arguably the most popular member of the royal family, then seeming "cold fish" attitude at the time of her death, then sure, he was "unfaithful."  I don't necessarily consider him, "totally unfit," but I think he would immediately be one of the least-popular monarchs in recent English history, and would likely lead to further erosion of the monarchy (and, likely, it's abandonment in other nations of the Commonwealth).  Hence, my comment that if he were smart he would abdicate/renounce, and allow his relatively-popular (and relatively untainted) son rule.
Quite frankly, Charles is well received wherever he goes. The reports about his visit to Canada last year were very favourable. It seems to me that your assessments are based on the glitz and glamour of celebrity status rather than by the actual hard work that is done by the Royal Family. And yes, Diana did perform many of her royal duties admirably. It was an ill-advised marriage to be sure. No one suffered more than Charles and Diana themselves, especially as they have had to endure the rarely charitable "750 million" judges on their case.

Opening up a constitutional can of worms would not be a "smart" thing to do. Of course, if Her Majesty lives another ten years or more, Charles will be a senior citizen himself (he's already 62), and undoubtedly William and Kate will likely fill many of the public duties. That scenario would seem to satisfy most: Charles to do the actual work of kingship with a younger face to present to the media.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,980


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2010, 12:15:44 PM »

Unfortunately, you are unaware of Canadian constitutional issues. To begin tinkering with constitutional matters such as this would not be easy in many Commonwealth nations; it would likely raise the matter of replacing the constitutional monarchy with some undefined system. Our friends in Australia have already gone through that.

While I do believe that any decision to or not to abdicate should be taken with all care and due consideration, including considering the impact on the various Commonwealth nations, I also believe that if it is a decision that would be best made for the benefit of the monarchy and Commonwealth, then so be it, regardless of the logistical speed-bumps.

In the case of Edward VIII, the political will was there to remove him from his position. I'm sure you are aware of the persistent rumours of his dallying with the Nazis.

The political will was focused solely on his persistent womanizing (of which George V was ashamed, and had wished that Edward would have no legitimate issue of his own so Albert and/or Elizabeth II could have no impediments to ruling) and desire to marry a twice-divorced woman.  The rumors of his "dallying" with the Nazis came after his abdication, largely because he actually went to Germany, met with Hitler, and offered Nazi salutes throughout his trip.

His wish to be married to a twice-divorced American made the abdication socially desirable as well.

I would submit that this was the major reason, based on my (admittedly limited) reading on the subject.

To express your dislike of Charles, you mentioned only his morality. What is it that makes William seem to you a better man?

received wherever he goes. The reports about his visit to Canada last year were very favourable. It seems to me that your assessments are based on the glitz and glamour of celebrity status rather than by the actual hard work that is done by the Royal Family.

I won't argue that Charles hasn't done admirable work in the service of the Crown and the Commonwealth; his charitable work is well-known, as is his continued service in his mother's name.  To keep the thread open about Edward - he, too, served the crown, and was known for his concern for the poor and downtrodden within the Isles (his racist opinions of the various other races in the Empire notwithstanding); however, the consensus was that the Sovereign must be both proficient in duty and honorable in character, and Edward failed on the latter count to the Establishment and subjects.  I'm not arguing that he was more or less moral from an Orthodox POV than other rulers or potential rulers (i.e. Charles and William) - most Kings of England seem to have sired illegitimate children at one point, which is why folks like Lady Di had royal blood but no succession rights.  But at least to the English standard of conduct for their rulers, Edward failed to live up to the standards of the Crown, and Charles himself seems to toe that line.

And yes, Diana did perform many of her royal duties admirably. It was an ill-advised marriage to be sure. No one suffered more than Charles and Diana themselves, especially as they have had to endure the rarely charitable "750 million" judges on their case.

Ill-advised, yet accepted by the Crown, entered into by two consenting and intelligent adults, who fully comprehended that their decision would be (rightfully, unfortunately) judged by many because of his status as the heir apparent.

Opening up a constitutional can of worms would not be a "smart" thing to do.

It depends; his accession may lead to the same debates about abandoning the monarchy as you've argued his abdication would.  In that case, which is "smarter?"

Of course, if Her Majesty lives another ten years or more, Charles will be a senior citizen himself (he's already 62), and undoubtedly William and Kate will likely fill many of the public duties. That scenario would seem to satisfy most: Charles to do the actual work of kingship with a younger face to present to the media.

We'll see.  Trivia: If Her Majesty is still on the throne in 2015, she'll become the longest-reigning monarch in English/British history, and the longest-reigning female monarch in recorded world history.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #56 on: November 18, 2010, 12:16:30 PM »

I wish him well, but as an unrepentant Fenian, in the words of Billy Maddison I say, "Whoopidy Doo"!  Tiocfaidh ár lá, laddies!

Nár laga Dia do lámh !


(May God not weaken your hand!)


Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh!

(May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead!)  Smiley



Ironically, Sinn Fein's original platform called for a dual monarchy.
Actually, no.  An Conradh Angla-Éireannach (The Anglo-Irish Treaty) was not accepted by many of the early Sinn Fein members.  You're confusing Sinn Fein with Fianna Fáil, the party that Eamon de Valera created in favor of The Anglo-Irish Treaty of which you speak.  If I said anything more, I'd get slapped with a warning.  And since I'm already on warning, I reckon I'll stop now.

Oops. Tongue
Don't be too hard on yourself.  It's a long, troubled history. Smiley

"Though not a monarchist himself, Griffith advocated such an approach for the Anglo-Irish relationship, namely that Ireland should become a separate kingdom alongside Great Britain, the two forming a dual monarchy with a shared monarch but separate governments, as it was thought this solution would be more palatable to the British."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Griffith

Wink

(This was prior to the Anglo-Irish Treaty)

 This was a proposal by Arthur Griffith, but it never took off because it was an unpopular idea (this is plainly stated in the Wiki article you provided).  Ergo, I think it's quite a stretch to assert it was on Sinn Féin's original platform. 

 Disclaimer: Although I used to be a member of Friends of Sinn Féin, because of their "progressive" policies, I have distanced myself from them. 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 12:24:18 PM by GabrieltheCelt » Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #57 on: November 20, 2010, 03:28:31 AM »

Prince Charles says Camilla may be the next queen

LONDON — Prince Charles has reopened a sensitive debate in Britain by suggesting his wife Camilla may take the title of queen when he becomes monarch.

The comments came in an interview with U.S. network NBC recorded in August and due to be broadcast later Friday.

Extracts were aired on British television and received high attention in the week Charles' son Prince William — who is second in line to the throne — announced his engagement to Kate Middleton.

Camilla legally will be queen if Charles takes the throne, but when the couple married in 2005 officials said she planned to adopt the title Princess Consort rather than the more traditional Queen Consort.

NBC's Brian Williams asked the 62-year-old heir to the throne if Camilla would become "Queen of England, if and when you become the monarch." Charles hesitated as he replied "That's, well ... We'll see won't we? That could be."

The difference is purely semantic — the role of consort carries no constitutional power. But polls have suggested there is hostility to Charles' divorced second wife, whom he married eight years after the death of Princess Diana, being called Queen Camilla.

At present Charles is Prince of Wales, but Camilla is known as Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales — Diana's title.

Camilla was reviled by Diana-lovers as the old flame who poisoned Charles' first marriage. "There were three of us in that marriage," Diana said in a famous TV interview.

Although Diana acknowledged affairs of her own, many Britons vilified Camilla as a royal home-wrecker.

But since her marriage to Charles the British public has warmed to Camilla, who is perceived as down-to-earth and funny. Those qualities were on display this week when she greeted news of Prince William's engagement with the words: "It's wicked."

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40280105/ns/today-today_people/
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #58 on: November 20, 2010, 08:57:57 AM »

NBC's Brian Williams asked the 62-year-old heir to the throne if Camilla would become "Queen of England, if and when you become the monarch." Charles hesitated as he replied "That's, well ... We'll see won't we? That could be."
First of all, there is not now nor will there be a "Queen of England". It's like expecting Americans to elect the "President of New Jersey". One would think that Brian Williams would be better informed. I wonder what was going through the PoW's mind as he heard "if and when...."
Quote
But since her marriage to Charles the British public has warmed to Camilla, who is perceived as down-to-earth and funny. Those qualities were on display this week when she greeted news of Prince William's engagement with the words: "It's wicked."
Camilla has been exemplary in her poise and hard work. She has my approval for whatever role she takes on in the future.

God Bless the Prince of Wales!
Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2010, 11:11:56 PM »


Bishop who said 'shallow' William and Kate's marriage would fall apart within seven years is suspended..

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332338/Kate-Middleton-Prince-Williams-marriage-fall-apart-bishop-suspended.html#ixzz16ALNaG00http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332338/Kate-Middleton-Prince-Williams-marriage-fall-apart-bishop-suspended.html
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #60 on: November 24, 2010, 12:48:47 AM »


Freedom of thought and common sense have long been anathema within the Christian Church.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #61 on: November 24, 2010, 12:54:37 AM »


I would assume that in most any organisations an employee can't go shooting off their mouths about their employers family.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #62 on: November 24, 2010, 12:59:39 AM »


I would assume that in most any organisations an employee can't go shooting off their mouths about their employers family.

When their employer happens to be the head of state, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 01:00:23 AM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #63 on: November 24, 2010, 01:05:28 AM »


I would assume that in most any organisations an employee can't go shooting off their mouths about their employers family.

When their employer happens to be the head of state, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a religious figure, her political responsibilities are irrelevant to her religious duties. At any rate, what really has no place in a Christian body is a senior figure who sees the need to be petty and snide. But then again, as a socialist republican he is only acting to character.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #64 on: November 24, 2010, 01:07:17 AM »


I would assume that in most any organisations an employee can't go shooting off their mouths about their employers family.

When their employer happens to be the head of state, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a religious figure, her political responsibilities are irrelevant to her religious duties. At any rate, what really has no place in a Christian body is a senior figure who sees the need to be petty and snide. But then again, as a socialist republican he is only acting to character.

Ok, let me reprhase that

When their employer happens to be the head of state/head of a religious institution, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political/religious entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2010, 01:32:51 AM »


I would assume that in most any organisations an employee can't go shooting off their mouths about their employers family.

When their employer happens to be the head of state, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a religious figure, her political responsibilities are irrelevant to her religious duties. At any rate, what really has no place in a Christian body is a senior figure who sees the need to be petty and snide. But then again, as a socialist republican he is only acting to character.

Ok, let me reprhase that

When their employer happens to be the head of state/head of a religious institution, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political/religious entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.

How far would you extend this freedom of speech?? If a civil servant wanted to divulge state secrets to the enemy because they didn't like the President's ears, do you think they should go unpunished??
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #66 on: November 24, 2010, 03:21:01 AM »


I would assume that in most any organisations an employee can't go shooting off their mouths about their employers family.

When their employer happens to be the head of state, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.

A political entity deserves more respect.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 03:22:27 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2010, 03:24:37 AM »


I would assume that in most any organisations an employee can't go shooting off their mouths about their employers family.

When their employer happens to be the head of state, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.

The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a religious figure, her political responsibilities are irrelevant to her religious duties. At any rate, what really has no place in a Christian body is a senior figure who sees the need to be petty and snide. But then again, as a socialist republican he is only acting to character.

Ok, let me reprhase that

When their employer happens to be the head of state/head of a religious institution, they should be more than free to tear them apart They are a political/religious entity and do not deserve the respect of a private citizen.

A political/religious entity deserves way more respect!
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 24, 2010, 05:43:37 AM »

God save Her Majesty the Queen! And God bless the Royal Family.

There are few things that would bring me out onto the streets, but the defense of the Monarchy, and the enjoyment of a national celebration such as the Royal wedding are two.

Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

May the Lord preserve us from republicanism and republicans.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #69 on: November 24, 2010, 08:32:32 AM »

God save Her Majesty the Queen! And God bless the Royal Family.

There are few things that would bring me out onto the streets, but the defense of the Monarchy, and the enjoyment of a national celebration such as the Royal wedding are two.

Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

May the Lord preserve us from republicanism and republicans.

Finally! Someone is talking sense!
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #70 on: November 28, 2010, 07:56:59 PM »

May I say, I think the thread title is a little strange? As I understand it, Prince William has asked his fiancee to marry him before, and she has turned him down because of the unpleasant way the press act in this country. I think it is she who 'chose' him!

I hope the press do give the couple time and space to enjoy their engagement in privacy.

However, reading through this thead, I find it very sad that someone mentioned that because Prince  Charles's first wife is dead, it is therefore ok that he married another woman with whom he'd been having an affair. I just don't understand why this is acceptable. It may  be forgivable, but surely the death of the first wife cannot make adultery more acceptable, can it?

Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #71 on: November 28, 2010, 09:03:52 PM »

May I say, I think the thread title is a little strange? As I understand it, Prince William has asked his fiancee to marry him before, and she has turned him down because of the unpleasant way the press act in this country. I think it is she who 'chose' him!

I hope the press do give the couple time and space to enjoy their engagement in privacy.

However, reading through this thead, I find it very sad that someone mentioned that because Prince  Charles's first wife is dead, it is therefore ok that he married another woman with whom he'd been having an affair. I just don't understand why this is acceptable. It may  be forgivable, but surely the death of the first wife cannot make adultery more acceptable, can it?
I'm not sure that anyone would be condoning adultery, but the death of an (ex-)wife does free a man to marry. I don't see why that would prevent any man from marrying his mistress. For that matter, if Prince William and Kate have been cohabiting, then according to the same thinking, should HRH marry his mistress??

Liz, I doubt that the young couple will get much privacy in the next few months - make that the next few years. Back in the early 80s after Charles and Diana married, I thought that a good plan would have been to get them out of the UK for a while - as Governor-General of Canada. I know that William would be received well here, but Her Majesty just in the last couple of months has commissioned David Johnston as GG, and those appointments typically last five years.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #72 on: November 29, 2010, 05:57:34 AM »

She really is stunning.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #73 on: November 29, 2010, 06:00:26 AM »

If I may...

Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2010, 03:22:58 PM »

[Assuming, of course, that Charles decides to be King when Mum passes.  I don't think he'd renounce his crown without ever wearing it, but it's theoretically in the field of possibility, no?

Here's Mr. Windosr's reaction to that idea:

Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2010, 03:46:26 PM »

However, reading through this thead, I find it very sad that someone mentioned that because Prince  Charles's first wife is dead, it is therefore ok that he married another woman with whom he'd been having an affair. I just don't understand why this is acceptable. It may  be forgivable, but surely the death of the first wife cannot make adultery more acceptable, can it?

My comment (I'm presuming you're referring to mine, that is) was in defense of lubeltri's insinuation that Camilla was not his wife but simply his "mistress".  Since lubeltri is Catholic, I merely pointed out that even by his own church's standards on divorce and remarriage, Camilla is simply the wife of Prince Charles, pure and simple.  With the death of Princess Diana, Prince Charles is no longer in a state of adultery. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2010, 04:48:32 PM »

However, reading through this thead, I find it very sad that someone mentioned that because Prince  Charles's first wife is dead, it is therefore ok that he married another woman with whom he'd been having an affair. I just don't understand why this is acceptable. It may  be forgivable, but surely the death of the first wife cannot make adultery more acceptable, can it?

My comment (I'm presuming you're referring to mine, that is) was in defense of lubeltri's insinuation that Camilla was not his wife but simply his "mistress".  Since lubeltri is Catholic, I merely pointed out that even by his own church's standards on divorce and remarriage, Camilla is simply the wife of Prince Charles, pure and simple.  With the death of Princess Diana, Prince Charles is no longer in a state of adultery. 
Maybe lubeltri is reffering to the fact that Camilla Shands first husband is still alive; Andrew Parker Bowles
the man who laid down his lifewife for his country.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2010, 05:22:35 PM »


Do you have a citation for those amathemas?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #78 on: December 16, 2010, 05:49:42 AM »

She is pretty though, nice job William.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 17, 2011, 03:19:14 PM »

if the wedding is anything like this i might watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kav0FEhtLug&feature=feedlik
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #80 on: April 17, 2011, 03:27:51 PM »

if the wedding is anything like this i might watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kav0FEhtLug&feature=feedlik

Still obsessed, I see.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #81 on: April 17, 2011, 04:15:21 PM »

no, i came accross the video and thought it was funny. i also thought some of the look alikes were pretty good..especially Camilla, Anne and Harry. For heaven's sake have a sense of humor (or humour if you prefer). If nothing else I thought ppl would like the fact that Rowen Williams is spoofed.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 04:39:56 PM by Tallitot » Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,374



« Reply #82 on: April 17, 2011, 06:47:39 PM »

Lucky bloke
Logged

St. Basil is great!

Wonder if he drank goat's milk . . .

genesisone
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,461



« Reply #83 on: April 17, 2011, 06:49:44 PM »

no, i came accross the video and thought it was funny. i also thought some of the look alikes were pretty good..especially Camilla, Anne and Harry. For heaven's sake have a sense of humor (or humour if you prefer). If nothing else I thought ppl would like the fact that Rowen Williams is spoofed.
You are quite right. It's hilarious - and you're equally right about the casting. It reminds me of something that would be done on the now defunct Canadian TV show "Royal Canadian Air Farce" (lots of clips on YouTube). We Canadians (and the Brits) are pretty good about enjoying spoofs of this sort.

BTW, I'll be serving breakfast on Friday, April 29 at about 5 a.m. EDT - it's a non-fasting week. (I think that might be due to the Prince of Wales being a covert Orthodox Christian Wink)
Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,580



WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2011, 07:07:14 PM »

yeah, isn't the lady playing Camilla a dead ringer? Almost scary.

my apologies to JotN if he found the video offensive.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 07:07:53 PM by Tallitot » Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Jharek Carnelian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Less than perfect Catholic. Married to member of ROC
Posts: 187



« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2011, 04:35:40 PM »

May I say, I think the thread title is a little strange? As I understand it, Prince William has asked his fiancee to marry him before, and she has turned him down because of the unpleasant way the press act in this country. I think it is she who 'chose' him!

I hope the press do give the couple time and space to enjoy their engagement in privacy.

However, reading through this thead, I find it very sad that someone mentioned that because Prince  Charles's first wife is dead, it is therefore ok that he married another woman with whom he'd been having an affair. I just don't understand why this is acceptable. It may  be forgivable, but surely the death of the first wife cannot make adultery more acceptable, can it?
I'm not sure that anyone would be condoning adultery, but the death of an (ex-)wife does free a man to marry. I don't see why that would prevent any man from marrying his mistress. For that matter, if Prince William and Kate have been cohabiting, then according to the same thinking, should HRH marry his mistress??

Liz, I doubt that the young couple will get much privacy in the next few months - make that the next few years. Back in the early 80s after Charles and Diana married, I thought that a good plan would have been to get them out of the UK for a while - as Governor-General of Canada. I know that William would be received well here, but Her Majesty just in the last couple of months has commissioned David Johnston as GG, and those appointments typically last five years.


In fairness BOTH Charles and Diana were guilty of adultery. However, Camilla is Charle's wife and that's not a matter of debate but a simple fact. Like GabrieltheCelt I am an Irish Republican. However I confine my aspirations in that regard to my own country. The British have a monarchy and it suits their system of govt. Also some of the talk about the individuals who make up their Royal Family has been unpleasantly nasty.
Logged

And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

'The Wayfarer' Pádraig Anraí Mac Piarais
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.301 seconds with 113 queries.