I have always liked Charles, and though he was head and shoulders above the rest of his family. I didn't think he was "brighter"; I just thought he had greater depths of compassion and empathy.
She was an adult, and she knew he didn't love her--from all accounts I've heard, he was pretty honest about that. The blame for that bad marriage is on the heads of his cold-blooded parents and the Spencers.
It's hardly surprising, since many Anglicans have Orthodox Envy. (Did you note my church's icons seminar?) I think it's funny that the article tries to create a familial bond though; Prince Philip is really about as Greek as IKEA is.
Let him be whatever religion he wishes, pullbicly or privately, I doubt it will be the first thing St Peter asks him or any of us about, but I thought this juxtaposition amusing is said to be especially drawn to the Orthodox church's rugged spirituality. Orthodox faithful are allowed to marry up to three times.
Yeah, I thought it strange that the article felt the most important thing we should know about Orthodoxy is that one could marry up to three times. Is the British press so cynical now after Charles?
No doubt we will be asked what use we made of the spiritual means we had at hand. For Charles, Orthodoxy looms large among them, thanks to family and to his traditionalist studies. For Nixon it was the Society of Friends. Perhaps Nixon's tragedy is that Elton Trueblood watered down the Friends' tradition to what would suit rather than challenge the young man's ambitions.
You would agree that Orthodoxy is a way to Christ, a way of Christ, and perhaps for some the best way. And if Charles has found it, more power to him.
of course. I found the juxtaposed phrases amusing. I have no concern what church he belongs to, in general have no knowledge of the man to know where he is spiritually --I think there are some for whom 'church' as in which one, looms too large, but have no way of knowing whether this is true of him or not. when it is ,it is something (like Avicenna's last string restraining the bird) which must be gone beyond isn't it? but my thought in this post was solely the humor of the phrasing... +S.
If he did convert it would be a real problem. It's not so much the Act of Settlement, which parliament can easily amend. It's the way the monarch is institutionally embedded into the church, and the way the church is established for the country that would cause all kinds of constitutional headaches.
He may have already been received into the communion of the Orthodox Church. I wonder when the last time was that he received the sacraments from an Anglican minister. And if he did, perhaps his Athonite spiritual father would sanction it in his unique circumstances.
fascinating. of course, if he were to convert, he might also abdicate. i think it's one of his sons that will be king, not charles. elizabeth has no intention of stepping down or dying.
Well, to paraphrase Charles De Gaulle: The cemeteries are full of "indispensable" men and women. I think Great Britain would be far better off with him as king, than with any other member of a family which is, for the most part selon moi, despicable and heartless. I'm a monarchist, as regards most constitutional set-ups, in most parts of the world, but the House of Windsor--unlike, say, the House of Borbon-Parma in Spain, just battens off the treasure and energies of the people of Great Britain--sort of like a vampire. Charles is the only one who takes an interest in civic virtue or public-spiritedness. He's not brilliant, but he's got a heart.
oh, i've always liked charles. (i'm 52, so i've seen him as almost a contemporary all my life.) it makes me sad that he couldn't have simply married camilla back when they were young, rather than going through the mutual pain of the marriage to diana spencer. as you say, he's maybe not the brightest bulb on the tree, but i think he's a good soul.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
The Prince of Wales IS a noble fellow.
Date: 2004-05-13 08:57 pm (UTC)Re: The Prince of Wales IS a noble fellow.
Date: 2004-05-13 09:36 pm (UTC)Re: The Prince of Wales IS a noble fellow.
Date: 2004-05-13 09:41 pm (UTC)Re: The Prince of Wales IS a noble fellow.
Date: 2004-05-14 01:40 am (UTC)defensor fides.
Date: 2004-05-13 09:10 pm (UTC)rugged spirituality
Date: 2004-05-13 09:55 pm (UTC)pullbicly or privately, I doubt it will be
the first thing St Peter asks him or any of
us about, but I thought this juxtaposition
amusing
is said to be especially drawn to the Orthodox church's rugged spirituality. Orthodox faithful are allowed to marry up to three times.
Re: rugged spirituality
Date: 2004-05-14 05:18 am (UTC)Re: rugged spirituality
Date: 2004-05-14 09:37 am (UTC)You would agree that Orthodoxy is a way to Christ, a way of Christ, and perhaps for some the best way. And if Charles has found it, more power to him.
avicenna
Date: 2004-05-14 09:58 am (UTC)amusing. I have no concern what church
he belongs to, in general have no knowledge
of the man to know where he is spiritually
--I think there are some for whom
'church' as in which one, looms too large,
but have no way of knowing whether this
is true of him or not. when it is ,it is something
(like Avicenna's last string restraining the bird)
which must be gone beyond isn't it?
but my thought in this post was solely the
humor of the phrasing...
+S.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-14 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-14 09:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-14 05:19 am (UTC)Elizabeth and her philandering husband are just cold-blooded egomaniacs!
Date: 2004-05-14 05:40 am (UTC)Re: Elizabeth and her philandering husband are just cold-blooded egomaniacs!
Date: 2004-05-14 05:51 am (UTC)