Yes, you may nap now -t.

I was under the distinct impression that there was no way in hell mom was going to let Chas marry Camilla. Maybe Chucky got the stones to tell mum to get stuffed.

According to the stories, Her Maj is very pleased, the Archbishop of Canterbury is saying a civil union is quite within accepted practice, and Tony Blair sends his congratulations. Camilla will become Duchess of Cornwall, and when/if Charles becomes King (assuming Elizabeth doesn't have her mother's longevity and outlives him), she will be Princess Consort, not Queen.

Thanks, sj! I'll direct my boss to you when if he questions what I'm doing.

It seems so silly and petty. Then again, as my husband pointed out, once you admit that any part of the system is silly and petty, the whole thing comes crashing down.

Diana's dead. The King's wife is the Queen. Yeesh.

Thanks, sj! I'll direct my boss to you when if he questions what I'm doing.

No worries. I am still have some evil in me from dealing with the cable company yesterday that is dying to come out. Send him my way. ;)

Can she not be Queen because she's divorced? Were Henry VIII's various wives all queens? This whole royalty thing, so confusing.

Now that I have permission to nap, I am suddenly awake. Weird.

Can she not be Queen because she's divorced? Were Henry VIII's various wives all queens?

Henry VIII is a very good dividing line, because the problem is with the Anglican church, of which the monarch is head. Orthodox Anglican forbids divorced people to remarry within the church, and the Queen would have to be a good Anglican, therefore a good divorced Anglican would not have remarried. The perks of being King are not what they were.

There are those who say that since Charles is divorced and remarrying outside of the church that it taints his fitness for the throne, which is why the Duke of Windsor (Edward 7/8th) stepped down. Back in the 1930s, marrying a divorced woman outside the church was too big an obstacle. Fortunately, the times have progressed, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is probably just relieved that the future King is actually going to be married and not just having an open mistress--though there is long tradition of that.

Diana would probably be alive today if she could have accepted that the marriages of royalty are not like those of average folks.

It's really stupid.

In theory, she's either the King's wife, or she's not. I don't understand the Archbishop of Canterbury saying a civil union is appropriate. If the Church doesn't disapprove of remarriage, why can't she have a church wedding? If it DOES disapprove, why is it okay if they're living in sin?

All of Henry VIII's wives were queens. Every single wife of a British monarch was queen, with the possible exception of Mrs. Fitzherbert, who married George IV in secret. The marriage could not have been legal by British law, because the heir to the throne cannot legally marry without the Sovereign's consent.

But other than that, the King's wife is the Queen.

I don't understand the Archbishop of Canterbury saying a civil union is appropriate. If the Church doesn't disapprove of remarriage, why can't she have a church wedding? If it DOES disapprove, why is it okay if they're living in sin?

I thought the whole point of the Anglican Church was that divorce/remarriage is okay. What with it being created so that Henry VIII could divorce and remarry and all.

But the Queen's husband is not necessarily the King, right? How do they finesse that?

It's like a logic problem.