Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charles and Camilla to Confess 'Past Sins'
FoxNews ^ | 4/8/05

Posted on 04/08/2005 12:49:01 PM PDT by workerbee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last
To: kalee
Charles already promised this once to Diana and Camilla Sarah Ferguson promised it to Andrew.

Fixed. ;-)

61 posted on 04/08/2005 4:06:20 PM PDT by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Hey, look, I'm genuinely sorry your marriage didn't work out.

Where did that come from?

62 posted on 04/08/2005 4:11:06 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
Where did that come from?

Two groups of people defend the annulment process in the American Catholic Church: those who give out annulments (members of the Tribunal and their friends) and those who have benefited from the process or figure they may want to benefit from it in the near future. I was just guessing which group you fit into.

63 posted on 04/08/2005 4:30:29 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I'm not Roman Catholic.


64 posted on 04/08/2005 4:38:47 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
I'm not Roman Catholic.

OK, I give up: Why are you defending these people???

65 posted on 04/08/2005 4:40:26 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Back up...

IMO, the greater failure of the American Catholic Church comes on the front end of things, before the marriages are made.

I could hardly say that is "defending" them.

66 posted on 04/08/2005 4:45:32 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

I don't mean Catholics generally, or even Church leaders. I mean the people who are handing out annulments as if they were rosaries. The standard reason for an annulment these days is some kind of improper prep for "real" Christian marriage. Henry VIII could tell these guys that he and his various wives were never quite in the right frame of mind when they got hitched, and that would be it. No Anglicans necessary. Of course, the Catholic Church would have been disloyal to the plain sense of scripture and to a tradition dating back to the apostles . . . but, as they say at the Tribunal, it's all so "compassionate."


67 posted on 04/08/2005 5:11:38 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
The standard reason for an annulment these days is some kind of improper prep for "real" Christian marriage.

That is the kind of thing I was referring to when I said the problem comes on the front end of things. I take it further, to before the first marriage was made, the one that failed.

I'm not going to enter into the debate with you about Henry VIII or the church that he started. You saw my understanding of the scriptures to be a defense of the American Roman Catholic Church, so I doubt it's very useful to try to iron out my differences with you there either.

68 posted on 04/08/2005 5:26:38 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: madprof98; GoLightly
Henry VIII could tell these guys that he and his various wives were never quite in the right frame of mind when they got hitched, and that would be it. No Anglicans necessary.

Well no. The Church of the time was usually quite amenable to handing out "annulments" ro the rich and powerfulk who needed them (especially Kings of France)

Unfortunately for Henry, his Pope was the King of Spain's bitch. So no annulment for Henry.

69 posted on 04/08/2005 5:27:37 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world." - Bill Toohey, Balitmore Count)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Thomas More, of course, was in the pay of . . . ?


70 posted on 04/08/2005 5:37:51 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ganymede

Not with that snout, teeth and chin, she wasn't. Ugh.


71 posted on 04/08/2005 6:10:25 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

Isn't Parker Bowles first name Andrew?
Whatever it is he will be at the happy nuptuals tomorrow.


72 posted on 04/08/2005 8:45:34 PM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

Andrew Parker Bowles

Colonel Andrew Henry Parker Bowles was born on 27 December 1939.

Andrew Parker Bowles was educated at Ampleforth and Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. In 1973 he married Camilla Rosemary Shand. They have two children: Tom and Laura.

Camilla and Andrew Parker Bowles divorced in 1995, and he married Virginia Pitman just a year later.


73 posted on 04/08/2005 8:48:52 PM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: kalee

Oh sorry! LOL, I was off in space somewhere thinking of the other prince (Andrew) and his divorce.

Thanks for correcting my correcting! :-)


74 posted on 04/09/2005 12:22:47 PM PDT by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson