Churchgoers ordered to pray for Camilla

[kskiska]

CHURCHGOERS are to be commanded by royal warrant to pray for Camilla Parker Bowles as part of regular Sunday services after her marriage to the Prince of Wales on April 8.

The Queen is planning to issue the warrant in formal recognition of her new daughter-in-law’s status as one of the most high-ranking members of the royal family.

At the moment, only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and Charles are individually remembered by the Church of England in state prayers during services of matins and evensong.

(snip)

The decision to change the prayers is controversial on two counts. The Queen removed the name of Diana, the late Princess of Wales, from the list after her divorce in 1996, at the same time as she withdrew her style of royal highness. The decision was attacked by Diana’s circle as “spiteful and humiliating”.

more…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1491821,00.html

[ElectroPrincess]

1. Too funny ... only the Brits could come up with ...

"The Royal Highness" of inane protocol. :silly:

[bin.dare]

42. "a pox on all their houses" said willy ...n/t

[paineinthearse]

2. BS

Why do the Brits keep this archaeic system? Cut them loose, the royals are parasites.

[TahitiNut]

6. Wallowing in wealth accumulated from generations of parasitism.

The drain bead celebration of "Princes" and "Princesses" and "Kings" and "Queens" whose very existence demonstrates the highest extreme of conspicuous consumption and enslavement of workers uncountable is abhorrent. The countless little brainwashing bombs (children's books, movies, toys, etc.) dropped on the young in this country are reprehensible.

[pacifictiger]

21. the royals

with all their trimmings are the draw for a tremendous sum of tourist dollars to the country. They are part of what makes england, england. And to be truthful, without the royal historical assets, who would bother to visit? People certainly don't go there for the climate.

[smirkymonkey]

33. I have visited the UK a number of times, and never ONCE was

the Royal Family a consideration in my choice of England as a tourist destination.

Of course it is part of history, and the historical aspect will always be part of the country's draw. However, I have been able to appreciate the history of the monarchs of other European countries which have chosen to dispense with the antiquated notion.

Examples: Versailles, Schonbrunn, Neuschwanstein, Heidelberg Castle, Chambord, etc.

[liberalhistorian]

3. Well, that's certainly going to go over

with a lot of Brits like a lead balloon. I just read an article about how Charles and Diana's sons are none too happy with the wedding, and aren't too thrilled with Camilla, although they go along with it publicly. I can't say I blame them at all, frankly.

[Warpy]

9. Well, stepchildren aren't supposed to like stepparents

unless they're very, very young or all grown up when it happens. It's always a weird dynamic.

I just wonder how marrying a divorcee is going to fit in with his being the nominal head of the Church of England. Won't he be forced to abdicate in favor of his eldest son?

Other than with that mild speculation, I anticipate the nuptials with an absolute frenzy of apathy.

[regnaD kciN]

19. To answer...

I just wonder how marrying a divorcee is going to fit in with his being the nominal head of the Church of England.

First of all, the English monarch isn't "nominal head" of the CofE...they're the "supreme governor," which is set out as meaning that they're responsible for the temporal administration of the church, but not of any spiritual issues.

Second, the rules on remarriage of divorced persons has changed in England over the past few decades. While such persons are not allowed a Church wedding, they can be readmitted to communicant status after a civil wedding -- which appears to be what will happen in this case.

[American Tragedy]

50. That seems rather ironic, considering the reason the C of E was founded

in the first place was to facilitate the many marriages of its titular head and founder.

[saracat]

18. Where was the article?

All I have read is the drivel about how happy they are for their Dad! Those boys were very close to their mother and they knew what she thought of the "rotweiler" as Diana called Camilla. I find it hard to believe they are really giving their blessing to a woman that caused(along with Charles) their mother such pain. Who had the guts to publish something other than the "officialPalace reaction"? I would like to read it.

[liberalhistorian]

44. It was an article in this

week's People Magazine. I admit I was also surprised to read it, but pleased, also, because I never believed the "happy, joy, all-is-well" bullshit the palace always put out regarding the situation. The article also made a point of mentioning the fact that neither of the sons were present at the engagement announcement, even though they weren't too far away; also mentioned was the fact that the boys have never been photographed with Camilla. The one-sentence press release they put out was also considered to indicate that the boys were less than thrilled.

Again, I can't say I blame them. I really believe Diana might still be alive if it hadn't been for "the rottweiler", and she would have been spared an awful lot of pain and embarrassment, also, if it hadn't been for said rottweiler. Charles and Camilla were extremely selfish and insensitive, and to expect the boys to accept her happily would be a bit much. After all, she did refer to their mother as "that ridiculous creature." I'd tell her to fuck off if I were them, frankly.

Those two should have married in the early 70's when they were first together, it would have saved a lot of people a lot of pain and suffering, including the loss of Diana.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Fitting, since charles used to pray to be "her knickers"

The whole royalty thing is absolutely beyond belief. Who in their right mind could take those inbred shit-the-pants idiots seriously.

[JVS]

16. He wanted to be her tampon

[saracat]

17. I wonder if they should pray for the tampon?

I would think she is beyond that now, but Charles can pretend!

[regnaD kciN]

20. Please keep in mind...

...that the dialog you're referring to took place in a private phone conversation that was being tapped (without authorization) by British Intelligence, and leaked to the press by someone there who wanted to embarass the Prince.

It seems to me that those who fulminate against the PATRIOT Act's threats to privacy are scarcely in a position to attack others over material obtained in a similar manner. Would you accept without complaint any embarrassing thing you ever wrote in a letter or spoke in a phone conversation at any point in your life suddenly appearing as front-page news in every paper in the world?

[candy]

5. I'd be happy to pray for them all---pray that they would go away.

What absolute nonsense the entire royalty thing is.

[paineinthearse]

7. The Brits have the Windsors, the Americans have *

Who is more stupid?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. Indeed, who is more stupid?

I'd take the royals, any day, over *!

[libbygurl]

27. Hear, hear!

The royals do have a duty to behave a certain way even just for ceremonial purposes. The Queen has been faithful to her duty, not so much the others, whether in the direct line or married into them. Besides, bad behavior has never been NOT associated with the royals in history, no? True, too, that the whole historical, cultural context and pageantry of the royal family is a big part of what draws tourists to England. If the Brits want to keep 'em, whose else's business is it to tell them otherwise?

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Good question!

And it seems like they are competing against each other for the title.

[Gemini Cat]

14. Well, uh, right!

Now that you put it that way. :)

At least the Windsors can speak proper English, unlike the drooling boob bush!

[Baclava]

8. Pray or die

...this is the White Mans way...1621.

[Erika]

12. The Bushies enjoy the same rep

They want to be be royal.

[MisterP]

13. well, if the royals retire, the modern Jacobins will have nobody to blame

when bad things happen...

[jfalchion]

15. Who cares?

:kick:

[ausiedownunderground]

22. Can we get rid of this on DU!!

American Democrats dont worry - most people in the Anglo-Saxon world outside of America don't give a "fuck" about this!!! What we really "care about" is America's "need" to feel good by "Killing" all of us!!! We will fight back!!! You thought the Muslim world was easy!!! Bring it on YANKS! Its not quite like Hollywood!!!

[RelativelyJones]

24. What's up with the superfluous quotes

Have you forgotten that Australia also has troops in Iraq and that your Howard was also reelected? What the fuck are you talking about with this "Bring it on Yanks" shit.

Lay off the sauce

[ausiedownunderground]

25. I heard your Special ops guys and gals were getting killed?

Oz special ops reckon in Fallujah your special ops and "whole fuckin" fighting force were "CRAP". US forces took 500 - 1000 killed easily. The guerrillas "buried" you in Fallujah. Oz Special Ops reckon you had to use "Chemical" weapons and potentially some sort of nuclear device to even make "headway" in Fallujah. Why is no US MSM allowed in Fallujah? The US forces are trying to dig huge amounts of "highly" contaminated ground up for some reason. Where they'll put it who knows??? Maybe in the Euphrates!!
You "Yanks" don't Know what happened in Fallujah and is still potentially occurring in Fallujah. Sorry for getting "so emotional" on this issue but our Special Ops person, who is not my relative, told us this would happen and not to take on the "Bush Gang" supporters on this subject untill he/she got home out of the "Complete" "Clusterfuck" that is America's IRAQ. And thats what we'll do! Hey you get anyone "Who was involved" with the "Real Fallujah"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you know about any American who fought in Fallujah i would love to compare "Notes" with Oz special ops notes on this battle!

[RelativelyJones]

26. This ain't no football game

You can't make up your mind whether you want to be an Oz patriot who plays this "my special ops are better than your special ops" bullshit or whether you're against this war like the vast majority of people on DU, no matter what country they come from. Look, If you think all Yanks are crap then just say it and be done with it. There's a reason that the British and Australians are there and its the same goddamn reason that the "Bush gang" has.

[Rex]

30. Welcome to DU!

Looks like the Aussie's foaming at the mouth. :crazy:

[RelativelyJones]

41. Thanx, Rex

[apple_ridge]

40. Why don't you direct your hatred towards those that deserve it

over at freerepublic.com?

[hezekkia]

23. I could imagine the Church of Ashcroft making us pray for the Bushies

:puke:

[Mad_Dem_X]

28. Don't give them any ideas!

How can you *force* someone to pray, anyway? A person's prayers are supposed to be private. :shrug:

[Rex]

29. Is the Queen the head of the Anglican church?

My how times have changed!

[steve2470]

31. Question: Is the Church of England the official church of UK ?nt

[steve2470]

never mind, the answer is YES..............

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

Church of England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England and is the mother branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion as well as a founding member of the Porvoo Communion. Christianity arrived in Britain in the first or second centuries and existed independently of the Church of Rome. Eventually the Church of England came under Papal authority during the Middle Ages, but separated itself from Rome in 1534 during the reign of King Henry VIII, though it briefly rejoined Rome during the reign of Queen Mary I in 1555.

<snip>

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[smirkymonkey]

34. "Commanded by Royal Warrant to Pray"???

WTF? How do you order one to pray? Especially for someone like Camilla? (I am neutral toward her, I don't really care about the marriage.) What I do care about is the totalitarian notion of ORDERING people to pray.

Am I the only one who thinks this is totally fucked up, or am I misunderstanding due to some kind of cultural nuance concerning royal marriages?

[Orangepeel]

35. I guess the priests have been ordered to pray...

in the sense that they will say something like, "Heavenly Father, we pray for Her Magesty Queen Elizabeth...." and now Camilla is added to the list.

The congregation isn't actually forced to pray, as they are able to 1) keep silent, 2) pray silently for whomever they want, and 3) just not show up to church

[lakemonster11]

43. That's how I interpreted it.

I went to a service a few years ago when I was in the UK, and it did weird me out a bit when the priest started saying that now we were praying for the Queen, Charles, William, Harry, etc., just because I'm not used to state-sponsored religion (or to royalty).

But I don't see that this "order" to pray for Camilla is really any weirder. It makes sense that since she's marrying Charles she would be added to the list of those singled out along with him and his sons. It also makes sense to me that Diana would have been deleted from the list when they got divorced.

Although it seems weird to us in the US, and though some people in the UK might not be happy about it for emotional reasons, it seems perfectly in line with the service I went to.

[TankLV]

36. What do you expect from a "religion" that was started solely because Henry

wanted to KILL his current wife to marry another and the pope wouldn't let him?

I mean, the WHOLE BASIS of this fucking sect is due to the fact that the bastard "king" couldn't marry, kill, marry, kill, as he pleased so he started up this new sect so he could marry, kill, marry, kill as he pleased.

Give us all a fucking break!

And we are "arguing" whether or not praying for this high-priced whore is proper or not!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Not quite:

Henry VIII did kill two of his wives, but his reason for breaking from the pope was that he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn after DIVORCING his first wife.

Of his six wives, he divorced two, had two killed for alleged adultery, had one die on him, and had the last one outlive him.

[HockeyMom]

39. Annulment

Pope refused to grant Henry an annulment (Catholic "divorce") from Katherine of Arragon. Yes, Henry wanted that annulment in order to marry Anne Boleyn. IF the pope had granted the annulment, Henry WOULD HAVE been free to marry Anne Boleyn, because an annulment declares that because of certain impediments, the first marriage never took place. Weird, but that is what church teaches. I spent 12 years in Catholic school listening to this stuff.

Using current events and people, Rudy had his first marriage to his second cousin (don't remember her name) annulled. No marriage ever took place in the eyes of the Catholic Church. So, he was then free to marry Donna Hanover. This time, however, correct me if I am wrong, he actually DIVORCED her (civil action) and remarried recently. In that case, he cannot receive Communion, because of the marriage, not the divorce. From what I have read, Kerry's first marriage was ANNULLED, which meant he could remarry in the eyes of the church.

What I find so outrageous in the past campaign, is that they BLASTED the fact that a few Bishops were refusing to give Kerry Communion based on his Pro-Choice stance, but what about RUDY? Not only did Rudy divorce and REMARRY, BUT he TOO is also PRO-CHOICE.

Man, talk about hypocrisy.

[Merope215]

46. "Divorced, beheaded, died,

divorced, beheaded, survived" is the way we used to remember them in order in high school. Catchy, huh? :crazy:

[CO Liberal]

37. A Perfect Example of the Need for Separation of Church & State

Right?

[Rainscents]

45. WTF????

[VegasWolf]

47. Everyone must pray for Rove next week, then Rush Limbaugh the

week after. Sure.

[pelagius]

48. My church...

..."requires" that we pray for the "President, Congress, and Courts" in certain forms of our liturgy, but it makes no stipulation as to the private contents of those prayers! :-)

[phusion]

49. I thought you meant Camilo Mejia

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/164223

Iraq war deserter...

Then I remembered it's the church.