As a non-monarchist, I don't actually give a rat's arse about announced wedding of Charles and Camilla, but there was one part of the BBC story that was simply too good to pass up:
If he became king, Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees.
Which is rather ironic, given the origins of the Church of England...
Actually, Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was declared void by his newly appointed Archbishop (Cranmer), rather than his being divorced. This is a fine point, I know. Henry considered himself a Catholic to his death - the Anglican church began to acquire its Protestant nature under Edward VI.
ReplyDeleteIt'll be interesting to see how the Christian Right can continue its antidivorce rhetoric given the impending second-round nuptials for Chazza and Cam.
ReplyDeleteIf you ask me, it's a wonderful case for republicanism.
Craig
The Christian Right tend not to be Anglicans anyway - and in America at least seem to have no problem at all with divorce (given the number of them they have).
ReplyDeleteCraig,
ReplyDeletethere are a hell of a lot of priests doing a hell of a lot worse than charles and camilla. they christian right can just give a vaguely disaproving snort and move on to real problems. Besides when have you heard a christian right person going out of his way to complain about remarriage? Also are christians right in NZ?