Stavros Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Nah, it's still a funny comment! Yet again the whole thing comes down to religion. Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Anglicans of a certain persuasion (and many other denominations within the Christian church) consider remarriage after divorce a form of legal adultery; since no man should put asunder what God has joined together, divorce does not exist for them and the woman is still considered to be married. However, if the divorced spouse is dead, the divorce makes no difference. In their eyes, she is then a widow and perfectly entitled to remarry. One religious solution is an annulment of the previous marriage. And, believe it or not, protestants and catholics, including even Roman Catholics, will sometimes grant religious (in the eyes of God) annulments (after legal divorce) ... even when children have been born from the marriage. A friend of mine was once bastardised by her father in exactly this manner in order to fulfill a certain religious criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsTrellisfromNorthWales Posted February 10, 2005 Author Share Posted February 10, 2005 And in the finest traditions of local journalism . . . http://img209.exs.cx/img209/7353/p1southglosfeb10.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karellen Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Anglicans of a certain persuasion (and many other denominations within the Christian church) consider remarriage after divorce a form of legal adultery; since no man should put asunder what God has joined together, divorce does not exist for them and the woman is still considered to be married. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I seem to remember from my history lessons at school that King Henry VIII invented the anglican church just so that he could get divorced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberalis Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Yeah I was bored! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Educa Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ; since no man should put asunder what God has joined together, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Henry VIII fixed that - off with their heads - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ; since no man should put asunder what God has joined together, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Henry VIII fixed that - off with their heads - <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good job he wasn't in charge of fixing quotes eh? Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Is anyone remotely bothered what Charlie boy does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Not really no. If he's happy then that's that as far as I'm concerned. I've got enough problems sorting my own life out. At least the guy's getting some. Fair play to him. I'm not getting into the whole political/religious/public figure BS either. The media can deal with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutnut Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Arrr well if the old bird makes him happy...... who gives a s... what they do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 No - no - no. I would abolish the monarchy. But, even accpepting the monarchy, he isn't suitable to be King because he talked with Camilla on the telephone about what it would be like if he was a Tampax or a pair of her knickers. He's an absolute idiot. He's a grown up person trapped in the mind of a juvenille idiot. That's what the Camillagate tapes were all about. There is nothing that he can do to regain any credibility. You can't go back from being a 40 something person who was babbling about being a Tampax and making it a sexual point. Whether of not you believe in the monarchy - can you imagine the Queen having a similar conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 That's what the Camillagate tapes were all about. There is nothing that he can do to regain any credibility. You can't go back from being a 40 something person who was babbling about being a Tampax and making it a sexual point. Whether of not you believe in the monarchy - can you imagine the Queen having a similar conversation? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes - yes - yes I can imagine the Queen having a similar conversation. And why not? I have always found the talk between lovers silly in the extreme because that's what it's all about. I'm surprised you don't. In any event the Monarchy is such an islolated figurehead it's what they stand for rather than the person. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 think that Charles should be free to marry anyone he wants. As for her being HRH or the Duchess of Cornwall, mmmm not sure many Cornish people want to be subservient to the crown anyway, so there may be words had. Cornwall is very like the IOM in the respect that they are a Celtic nation and don't want to be beholden to the crown of England anyway. The fact that a lot of English people live there is also a factor. In one of the newspapers today was the headline ER indoors. Well that is just stupidity itself as the E stands for Elizabeth and the R, Regina ergo it cannot have anything to do with CPB. Which leads me on to, will she be known as CPB Windsor, or CPB Saxe Coburg, or the woman who is (Charles's bit on the side, who broke up the marriage of C+D, and even after nearly eight years the English public will never forgive her) even though they are married. Personally I can't see Elizabeth giving up the title until C is too old. Then William will step in, abdicate cos he wants to be left alone and Harry will throw the biggest party ever, after which he'll tell England that they can all F--- Off and he's away to America. Andrew, who has been left out of the plot will assume the throne, get back together with Sarah and rule until the civil war of 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 When the Queen finally pops her clogs, the Monarchy should die with her. What the hell is it for? The head of state should then be non-political and someone who is universally loved. Michael Palin can have it for the first year, with Des Lynam as his consort. Thierry Henry has the culture to have it for a couple of years with Arsene as his Queen Mother I won't take over until the system has bedded in after about four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 But you claim to be a spurs fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.