homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Born a child and yet a king (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Born a child and yet a king
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A YouGov poll, carried out in February 2011, said that just 13% of voters favour becoming a republic on the death of QEII. In spite of the noise they make in the media, and even on a forum such as this, republicans are an insignificant minority in Britain today. Charles may prove to be a much less popular monarch than his mother, but if he did the sensible thing, and abdicated in favour of William, I don't think its popularity would fade at all.

If you're a genuine royalist you don't go around saying it would be sensible for unpopular heirs to the throne to abdicate in favour of the next in line. That's not real monarchism: that's unprincipled spin-doctoring.

Either Charles stays or all the Windsors go. If we want a monarchy we abide by the line of succession. If we want to choose the head of state by popularity contest we might as well have a republic.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Charles may prove to be a much less popular monarch than his mother, but if he did the sensible thing, and abdicated in favour of William,

Won't happen. The Prince of Wales knows that it is his duty to be King. Frankly, I think he'd be much happier retiring to the life of a country gentleman and leaving the show to the Duke of Cambridge, but it won't happen.

It's by no means impossible that he will predecease Her Majesty, though.

I suspect the most likely thing is that the people will have chance to get used to him, though. When the Duke of Edinburgh dies, I expect that the Prince of Wales will take on the lion's share of the Queen's public duties (but probably not as Prince Regent). That'll give people several years to get used to him doing the job of King before they have to deal with him as King in fact.

[ 24. July 2013, 20:02: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380

 - Posted      Profile for Matariki   Author's homepage   Email Matariki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I accept republicans in Britain are a fairly small minority, though here in the Realm of New Zealand it is a much more close run thing. Sentiment around royalty is fickle, with a wedding, a diamond jubilee and now the firstborn to the Cambridge's you'd expect it to be riding high. Personally speaking I think the Queen is admirable, I quite like Charles and William and Catherine appear utterly charming - none of which is the point really. Republicans simply put a democratic principle before a venerable institution, you might not agree. You might think that makes us odd, but it is a perfectly respectable opinion and the casual abuse heaped out on republicans in the wake of major royal occasions (we being killjoys, lefties, resentful etc) is pretty distastesful.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either Charles stays or all the Windsors go. If we want a monarchy we abide by the line of succession. If we want to choose the head of state by popularity contest we might as well have a republic.

I agree with you to the extent that the institution of monarchy is about the institution itself, not about the individual who sits on the throne, and so Charles is perfectly entitled to be king. But he has problems. I am old enough to remember what an immensly popular young man he was, and how ardent monarchists, like my mother, felt secure about the future in his hands. All this was ruined by his ill-fated marriage. Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?

I personally see the Duchess of Cornwall as a very dignified lady, and I have no problem with her, but how is Charles going to pass her off as his queen? The British public will never accept her. They still perceive Charles and Camilla to have done an enormous wrong to Diana, even though it is in no way that simple. Edward VIII abdicated in order to prevent a major constitutional crisis, and passed the throne to his brother who had a wife and children and were, at least to the outside world, a perfect family.

Though times have changed, and Charles' accession may not cause the same problems to church and state as those of Edward VIII, the stability of the crown would be better served, as in 1936, by an abdication which would allow william, his lovely and popular wife, and thei children to be in the spotlight. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't give my allegiance to Charles as king, if he chooses to stay.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matariki:
Republicans simply put a democratic principle before a venerable institution, you might not agree.

I do agree. But the venerable institution is democratic if the people in that democracy want it! If the people of New Zealand or any of the 16 countries which have the Queen as Head of State, including the UK, decide they want to be a republic, then it would be undemocratic to retain the monarchy. It is ultimately down to the voters, and where I live, there is little will, apart from a vociferous small minority, to change our constitution. Perhaps New Zealand will do it soon. I see little point in having a Head of State who lives on the opposite side of the globe!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I personally see the Duchess of Cornwall as a very dignified lady, and I have no problem with her, but how is Charles going to pass her off as his queen? The British public will never accept her. They still perceive Charles and Camilla to have done an enormous wrong to Diana, even though it is in no way that simple.

Oh, come on. Lots of people like Camilla and don't have a problem with her - the only people who do are the die-hard Diana fans. As you say Camilla is a very dignified lady, and in person she's warm, friendly and charming. She'll be fine as queen.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either Charles stays or all the Windsors go. If we want a monarchy we abide by the line of succession. If we want to choose the head of state by popularity contest we might as well have a republic.

I agree with you to the extent that the institution of monarchy is about the institution itself, not about the individual who sits on the throne, and so Charles is perfectly entitled to be king. But he has problems. I am old enough to remember what an immensly popular young man he was, and how ardent monarchists, like my mother, felt secure about the future in his hands. All this was ruined by his ill-fated marriage. Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?

I personally see the Duchess of Cornwall as a very dignified lady, and I have no problem with her, but how is Charles going to pass her off as his queen? The British public will never accept her. They still perceive Charles and Camilla to have done an enormous wrong to Diana, even though it is in no way that simple. Edward VIII abdicated in order to prevent a major constitutional crisis, and passed the throne to his brother who had a wife and children and were, at least to the outside world, a perfect family.

Though times have changed, and Charles' accession may not cause the same problems to church and state as those of Edward VIII, the stability of the crown would be better served, as in 1936, by an abdication which would allow william, his lovely and popular wife, and thei children to be in the spotlight. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't give my allegiance to Charles as king, if he chooses to stay.

What would be the issue with Charles being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while married to a divorced woman? The CoE marries divorced people and allows divorced clergy, I don't see why it should be a problem. Also I actually don't think the public would reject Camilla as queen now - she's more popular than she's ever been, and comes across as very down to earth. I think she's actually improved Charles' image somewhat.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I think you're right. This isn't 1936.
BTW I hadn't heard her speak until this week, and so hadn't realised what a sexy voice she has- not quite at the Joanna Lumley level, but getting there.
Or does that make me weird?

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not at all, Albertus. I am not attracted to her in a sexual way, but I find her a very likeable, loveable and attractive figure. I once read that, as a young woman, she would come back from a day's riding, throw off her clothes, put on her gown and go off to the Hunt Ball without faffing around with make-up or anything like that. It's that sort of get-up-and-go spirit (though more aged and refined) that seems to come across now (to me, anyway). Perfect qualifications to be Queen, I reckon.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not at all, Albertus. I am not attracted to her in a sexual way, but I find her a very likeable, loveable and attractive figure. I once read that, as a young woman, she would come back from a day's riding, throw off her clothes, put on her gown and go off to the Hunt Ball without faffing around with make-up or anything like that. It's that sort of get-up-and-go spirit (though more aged and refined) that seems to come across now (to me, anyway). Perfect qualifications to be Queen, I reckon.

I like that story, I think it shows why she gets on well with the horses-dogs-and-countryside Windsors and others in their social set. I still object to the system of monarchy but I think Charles and Camilla seem like very nice people, Camilla especially.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Glad I'm not weird, then!
Yes, she seems very down to earth, sorted and good fun. I think she's loosened him up a bit. Great pity that they didn't marry first time round.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Glad I'm not weird, then!
Yes, she seems very down to earth, sorted and good fun. I think she's loosened him up a bit. Great pity that they didn't marry first time round.

Agreed, they are far more suited to each other than Charles and Diana ever were. William and Harry are clearly close to Camilla which helps. I may not want her as my head of state but I'd certainly go out for a drink (or 5) with her.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Could you stand the pace, though? [Smile]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Great pity that they didn't marry first time round.

Standard Operating Procedure for the heir to the throne. They get an official wife to provide the heir and the spare (and if they manage to survive long enough to do the public duties of a Queen Consort). But they also have another (or occasionally more than one other) for the more private parts of a marriage. See George IV, William IV, Edward VII. Edward VIII's mistake was in insisting on marrying "the woman I love" rather than just seeing her for long weekends while getting his heirs on a well-connected young princess, the way obedient royals do.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]I think Charles and Camilla seem like very nice people, Camilla especially.

Seeming like and being are two different things. The last few years have seen a real PR effort to rehabilitate C and C and for the most part it seems to have worked. Doesn't change their nature though as private opinions surface from time to time that are at odds with the carefully cultivated public image. Some of Philip Mountbatten's comments would get him on a racist or sexist register in a workplace or school and as for dear old Auntie Margaret, well her comments about working class people were as vile as her drinking habits.

Charles' comments a couple of years ago about young people's inappropriate aspirations were a case in point. As his interference in Government affairs - who on earth does he think he is?

Camilla's cringe worthy attempts at "crucial" street cred language is laughable. In private, the Queen apart, the Royals are dismissive of anyone who they think isn't in their class. Sad to say, too many people buy into the image but ignore the reality. The Queen is the only who, even to my extreme republican eyes, comes out of it all with real authenticity.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What would be the issue with Charles being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while married to a divorced woman? The CoE marries divorced people and allows divorced clergy, I don't see why it should be a problem.

Just so long as the Governor of the Church of England isn't divorced himself. Where would the Church of England be if the King was allowed to be divorced?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[T]he Royals are dismissive of anyone who they think isn't in their class.

If that is true doesn't it rather put them on a par with most of their subjects?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[...In private, the Queen apart, the Royals are dismissive of anyone who they think isn't in their class...

How do you know that, please? Do you / did you move in more exalted circles than we had suspected? (Take it that your first name is Mark: surname Philips, perhaps?)

[ 24. July 2013, 22:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back a bit - I somehow had the idea that Paine (and I spotted him in that quote) was British. I was shown, with great respect, a house where he used to hang out in Lewes.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, he was British- indeed, a very English figure, born in Norfolk, living at one time as you say in Lewes, shot through with a 'Norman Yoke' analysis of English liberty. But he spent a lot of time in America, including active support for the rebellious colonists, and then in France after 1789, where he was elected a member of the Assembly despite (another very English characteristic) not speaking a word of French. Died in, I think, New Jersey: William Cobbett brought his bones back to England but they got lost soemwhere, either on arrival or en route.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Though times have changed, and Charles' accession may not cause the same problems to church and state as those of Edward VIII, the stability of the crown would be better served, as in 1936, by an abdication which would allow william, his lovely and popular wife, and thei children to be in the spotlight. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't give my allegiance to Charles as king, if he chooses to stay.

If the stability of the monarchy is served by Charles abdicating then the monarchy has no stability.
The whole point of monarchy as an institution is that the crown is passed to someone whose sole qualification is having the right parents. You take the rough, the twits and the libertines, with the dutiful and the competent. If the monarchy is stable then it's stable when George III is mad and the Prince Regent is a dissolute fop with a scandal of a marriage. If it's not stable under those conditions it's not stable at all.

And I don't think it's right to talk as if you'd have a choice about giving your allegiance to Charles as King. It's no more your gift to give than your taxes are a gift to the government.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What would be the issue with Charles being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while married to a divorced woman? The CoE marries divorced people and allows divorced clergy, I don't see why it should be a problem.

Just so long as the Governor of the Church of England isn't divorced himself. Where would the Church of England be if the King was allowed to be divorced?
Given Henry VIII, it would be non-existent if the King wasn't allowed to be divorced.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Al Eluia

Inquisitor
# 864

 - Posted      Profile for Al Eluia   Email Al Eluia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As an American I'm finding this conversation interesting in a vistor-from-Mars way. Of course the issue of a divorced king as governor of the CofE would be solved by disesablishing the CofE. I find it odd that so many Americans go gaga over an institution (the monarchy) that we fought a war to throw off, but I wish at least the media would get the titles right and, for instance, stop referring to "Princess Kate."

I'm surprised not to see any discussion of the baby prince's name. Are you all pleased with the choice of George Alexander Louis?

--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/

Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
George was the bookies' favourite, Alexander seems surprisingly un-royal (for the English at least, though not for the Scots) and Louis is surely in honour of Mountbatten. I thought that Phillip would have been in there, not that it matters.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Louis Mountbatten. [Roll Eyes]

A right twit if ever there was one.

See Dieppe Raid, subheading Fiasco.

That's why Mountbatten was Persona Non Grata in Canada for the rest of his life.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
George was the bookies' favourite, Alexander seems surprisingly un-royal (for the English at least, though not for the Scots) and Louis is surely in honour of Mountbatten. I thought that Phillip would have been in there, not that it matters.

There's plenty of Alexandras in recent royal history (including Her Majesty) though. I thought Philip would have been in there, too, although I could see the Duke of Edinburgh favoring Louis.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Charles' comments a couple of years ago about young people's inappropriate aspirations were a case in point.

In that case, he was bang on. What he said was:

quote:

What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of child-centred system which admits no failure. People think they can all be pop stars, High Court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.

And he was right. It's not about "knowing your place," it's about knowing your capabilities. Most people will not make it as a professional footballer, pop star, or whatever - you only have to look at the large pool of bad singers queuing up to audition for things like Pop Idol to understand how deluded people are.

Prince Charles was not saying that people shouldn't aspire - but that their aspirations should have some kind of connection to their skills and talents, and that they should be prepared to put in the necessary effort to get there, rather than hoping that a multi-million pound contract to be the next big TV personality will just land in their lap.

There's a certain irony in the fact that it's Prince Charles saying it, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[T]he Royals are dismissive of anyone who they think isn't in their class.

If that is true doesn't it rather put them on a par with most of their subjects?
Probably but at least most of us don't pretend otherwise or spin it
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Charles' comments a couple of years ago about young people's inappropriate aspirations were a case in point.

In that case, he was bang on. What he said was:

quote:

What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of child-centred system which admits no failure. People think they can all be pop stars, High Court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.

And he was right. It's not about "knowing your place," it's about knowing your capabilities. Most people will not make it as a professional footballer, pop star, or whatever - you only have to look at the large pool of bad singers queuing up to audition for things like Pop Idol to understand how deluded people are.

Prince Charles was not saying that people shouldn't aspire - but that their aspirations should have some kind of connection to their skills and talents, and that they should be prepared to put in the necessary effort to get there, rather than hoping that a multi-million pound contract to be the next big TV personality will just land in their lap.

There's a certain irony in the fact that it's Prince Charles saying it, but that doesn't make him wrong.

In fairness to Charles, The Prince's Trust does extremely practical and helpful work with disadvantaged young people, which often involves helping them find/get skills towards a career.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given Henry VIII

Henry VIII was never divorced. The Church of England was created to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, on grounds of consanguinity. He had tried to get the pope to do it, but had ran out of patience, and Anne Boleyn was pregnant anyway. His marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled on grounds of non-consummation.

So every time Henry married, his marriage was licit in his own eyes, and those of the Church of England, because his previous wives were either dead (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard by execution, Jane Seymour by natural causes) or his marriages to them were pronounced null by the Church. Hence no divorces there!

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Alexander seems surprisingly un-royal (for the English at least, though not for the Scots)
We've had three King Alexanders. The third is part of the primary school history curriculum, so most people would recognise it as a royal name here.

Alexander was the 9th most popular name for baby boys born in Scotland last year, so it's a name which is both regal and sounds contemporary.

Also, it's our First Minister's name. [Biased]

Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
I'm surprised not to see any discussion of the baby prince's name. Are you all pleased with the choice of George Alexander Louis?

George is a "safe" name, Alexander is an excellent name, Louis is one of the more interesting choices from the pool of current Royal names. I like it. Good choice.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given Henry VIII

Henry VIII was never divorced. The Church of England was created to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, on grounds of consanguinity. He had tried to get the pope to do it, but had ran out of patience, and Anne Boleyn was pregnant anyway. His marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled on grounds of non-consummation.

So every time Henry married, his marriage was licit in his own eyes, and those of the Church of England, because his previous wives were either dead (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard by execution, Jane Seymour by natural causes) or his marriages to them were pronounced null by the Church. Hence no divorces there!

Divorced persons can still get married in the CoE and become clergy, so still no barrier. However, speaking personally, disestablishment would be best all-round!

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What happens if the little sprog is gay? Will he be married off to an Austrian commoner, so that he can carry on gay affairs au secret? Just curious.

If pubic opinion continues along current trends, when he's of age, there would be general support for him to marry another man in that event.

This would, of course, be a problem for the succession - heirs have to be legitimate heirs of the body, and even with an extra 30 years of medical science, I don't think a gay man and his husband will be able to manage that.

That's still OK, though - he'll probably have siblings, and cousins, that will stand after him in the succession.

The thoroughly silly part about obsessing over this child is that the order of succession is already known for probably 100 people or more. Probably WAY more. Heck, the current monarch already has over a dozen other descendants available. I think Zara Phillips is in slot 15 now.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]
There's a certain irony in the fact that it's Prince Charles saying it, but that doesn't make him wrong.

Arguably not wrong (I think he is) but he's certainly a hypocrite given his own position and how he got there. He's neither qualified nor, IMHO, does he have the ability.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Arguably not wrong (I think he is)

What - you think it is better for people to waste their time dreaming of things they aren't capable of doing, rather than making the best use of the talents they have?

quote:

but he's certainly a hypocrite given his own position and how he got there. He's neither qualified nor, IMHO, does he have the ability.

No, he's not a hypocrite. You will note that nowhere in his statement does he make any claim about himself.

He is, of course, qualified to be King, being the eldest son of the current monarch. That is the qualification in a hereditary monarchy. So far as I know, he isn't aspiring to any other role.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?
As I understand it, he doesn't want to be Supreme Governor of the C of E. This could be our big chance for disestablishment!

Oh, and what everyone else said. If you're in favour of monarchy you have to take Charles next, warts and all.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still object to the system of monarchy

I put this to all who, like Jade, object in principle to the system of monarchy. Do you object, in priciple, to the British people retaining their monarchy if that's what they, as a whole, want? Admittedly we've never had a popular vote on the subject, but there's no loud public clamour for it, like there is for EU membership. And there's no political party calling for it. It's on the lines of, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."

Though I'm a monarchist, my belief in democracy trumps my support for the Royal Family, and if any of the 16 countries of which the Queen is Head of State wants to democratically change this, I support their right to do so. Do you support our right to love the system we have, and to retain it by popular consent?

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[
So every time Henry married, his marriage was licit in his own eyes, and those of the Church of England, because his previous wives were either dead (Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard by execution, Jane Seymour by natural causes) or his marriages to them were pronounced null by the Church. Hence no divorces there!

The divorced Governor of the Church of England was George II

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I too many Is in that II there

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still object to the system of monarchy

I put this to all who, like Jade, object in principle to the system of monarchy. Do you object, in priciple, to the British people retaining their monarchy if that's what they, as a whole, want? Admittedly we've never had a popular vote on the subject, but there's no loud public clamour for it, like there is for EU membership. And there's no political party calling for it. It's on the lines of, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."

Though I'm a monarchist, my belief in democracy trumps my support for the Royal Family, and if any of the 16 countries of which the Queen is Head of State wants to democratically change this, I support their right to do so. Do you support our right to love the system we have, and to retain it by popular consent?

Of course - there's no point in objecting to monarchy because it's intrinsically undemocratic, and then wanting some kind of undemocratic republican takeover! But I think most people are just plain apathetic and don't care either way, or support the monarchy based on the personality of the monarch and not whether the system is right or wrong. When I mention my republicanism I often get how can I think this when the Queen is such a Good Christian Woman, when that's not really the point.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken, Were you thinking of George IV, who married Caroline of Brunswick? He never actually divorced her,but excluded her from his coronation and directed that she be removed from the usual prayers for the Royal family.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, George I who divorced his wife then had her locked up for the rest of her life.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, George I divorced Sophia Dorothea on grounds of abandonment.

(sorry for the cross-post!)

[ 25. July 2013, 10:27: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's right, coming back to me now. As scandalous as George IV though.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Worse, really.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I put this to all who, like Jade, object in principle to the system of monarchy. Do you object, in priciple, to the British people retaining their monarchy if that's what they, as a whole, want?

Of course not. What I do object to is the idiocy in statements about whether or not the British people will "accept" Charles as king or Camilla as queen. If the British people don't "accept" Camilla as queen, what exactly are they going to do about it except read trash about her in the papers and talk about what a great queen Diana would have made?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In a sense you're right, although expected or assumed public response is a tactical factor. We don't have morganatic marriages in this country but this is why Camilla is known as Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales, although she presumably has a right to the latter title too. Similarly, if she were considered to be very unpopular, or at least, on thin ice when Charles inherits (and I don't think she will, BTW), one might imagine it being proposed that she should be known as e.g. Duchess of Lancaster.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either Charles stays or all the Windsors go. If we want a monarchy we abide by the line of succession. If we want to choose the head of state by popularity contest we might as well have a republic.

I agree with you to the extent that the institution of monarchy is about the institution itself, not about the individual who sits on the throne, and so Charles is perfectly entitled to be king. But he has problems. I am old enough to remember what an immensly popular young man he was, and how ardent monarchists, like my mother, felt secure about the future in his hands. All this was ruined by his ill-fated marriage. Can he be Supreme Governor of the Church of England when married to a divorcee?

I personally see the Duchess of Cornwall as a very dignified lady, and I have no problem with her, but how is Charles going to pass her off as his queen? The British public will never accept her. They still perceive Charles and Camilla to have done an enormous wrong to Diana, even though it is in no way that simple. Edward VIII abdicated in order to prevent a major constitutional crisis, and passed the throne to his brother who had a wife and children and were, at least to the outside world, a perfect family.

Though times have changed, and Charles' accession may not cause the same problems to church and state as those of Edward VIII, the stability of the crown would be better served, as in 1936, by an abdication which would allow william, his lovely and popular wife, and thei children to be in the spotlight. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't give my allegiance to Charles as king, if he chooses to stay.

He's popular with me - and I can tell you that now the history is clearer there are plenty of people who see Diana was never a saint.

Charles and Camilla will be OK.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Poor old Diana. Sad, sad case. Never thought much of her, but she was completely fucked up - and I suspect would have been whoever she married. What would she be now- 52 or something? I don't know how she'd have managed middle age, but I imagine she'd have hated being seen as a grandmother.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Albertus:
quote:
Similarly, if she were considered to be very unpopular, or at least, on thin ice when Charles inherits (and I don't think she will, BTW), one might imagine it being proposed that she should be known as e.g. Duchess of Lancaster.
I daresay you're right, but I think it's silly. It's not like we haven't had unpopular queens before... mentioning no Elizabeth Woodvilles in particular. Camilla wouldn't even be queen regnant; merely queen consort. If the British public really can't stomach having a queen they don't like much, perhaps it is time the British public considered republicanism.

Of course if Charles predeceases the Queen we'll be skipping straight to William anyway. Who can say how popular he will be in 20 years' time?

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools