Queen talks to the bishops regarding Prince Charles' marriage with Camilla - The Crown Season 6
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 гру 2023
- The Crown S06 E10
#thecrown #netflix #queenelizabeth #queenelizabethii #thecrownseason6 #thequeen #hermajesty #imeldastaunton #princecharles #kingcharlesiii #princeofwales #unitedkingdom #dominicwest #greatbritain #princessdiana #diana #spencer #princessofwales #elizabethdebicki #dominicwest #queencamilla #camilla #kingcharles #oliviawilliams
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. All rights belong to their respective owners.
Ironic, since their entire branch of Christianity was founded on a king wanting to have a divorce lol.
No it wasn’t. The Protestant religion essentially broke away from the Roman catholism because they felt it was corrupted. The protestant movement swept through Europe into the British isles etc
Yes but tbf he didn't marry a divorcee. He always married women who were never married or in the case of Catherine Parr, a woman whose husband had died. Charles divorcing Diana because of Camilla is one thing. Henry didn't just want a annulment because of Anne but also because Catherine failed to give him a male heir AND she also potentially lied about never having consumating the marriage with his brother (which would have amounted to him comitting incest).
@@spearshake4771 Henry wanted to divorce his elderly wife who couldn’t bare children. The pope refused to grant him a divorce. He granted other monarchs around Europe divorced, for all manner of reasons, just not Henry for something reason. So the inevitable happened. The decision was argued on a point of state law and ecclesiastical law. He formed his own church. The King is the law in his country. The rest is history.
The irony was Henry was a good catholic, just not a good Roman Catholic.
@@Stand663I think its also very possible that Catherine had lied to Henry about never having consumated her marriage with Arthur. When Arthur died she was obviously panicking about her position. Her family had made this alliance with another nation and she was basically ruined for any of the other potential suitors in Europe. I obviously have no historical sources to back this up but as far as I can tell marriages in Europe would be followed with a consumation on that very night (usually witnessed by others though here in this case it seems unknown whether Catherine truly had consumated the marriage or not).
At least Anne B. was NOT a married woman when she met the king.
This reminds me of the story of when a bishop was invited to dinner at Windsor just before Easter. The Queen offered the bishop a drink before dinner, which he accepted. "Are you not having one also?" he asked her. "During Lent? Certainly not," she replied.
if you watch Yes, Minister you will find your answer
The bishops are doing politics and the politicians are doing morals, such a beautiful and timeless series. @@InSiMayb
Well the Bishop had to taste the drink first to see if it was good haha
@karldelavigne8134 - What a condescend story to try to justified the despicable life style of Charley!
Bishop was smarter than her. He didn't get high on his own supply...
I love the collective reaction of the bishops when she mentions the possibility of her death. Well done, well done.
I love her response to it. Like, "oh get over yourselves, I'm not going to live forever. Not for a lack of trying of course."
Her death being synonym of Charle's ascension? Ouchie (lol)
Same. The Queen was a pillar of the nation for so long, even her (many) detractors had trouble imagining her being gone - and dealing with the reality.
She played her hand very nicely!
@@XanathosZeronot necessarily. When Charles married Camilla, the Queen was around 79 years old. I'm sure around that time, she knew her death was inevitable. She had no way of knowing she was going to live to 96.
Imelda is brilliant in this. Her lips are trembling with contained rage as she says “while living in sun” - rage at the bishops for their pomposity and rage at her son for putting her in this position.
In sin not sun
In the script, the Bishops are backed into a corner by the Queen.
Accept a King that has been remarried to a divorced woman, or have a King and Supreme Governor of the Church thumb his nose at a central teaching…
"living in sin"
@@briandfallon74 A better response would have been for the Queen to suggest that at least some of those red-robed hypocrites express "penance" for their indiscretions with some choir boys....
@@junipervip681 is there evidence the Bishops portrayed were involved in scandal, either as abuser or covering it up?
The casting of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowen Williams in this scene was pure perfection. I was managing editor of a niche theological publishing house in Cambridge, Massachusetts when this event occurred, and he was one of our most esteemed, thoughtful, and cherished authors. “Wickedness” is most certainly not a word he would have used in this context.
As a member of the Church of England, he was a brilliant Archbishop. Kept the Communion together while upholding Church doctrine and finding the compromises needed in the best situation. So much better than our current incumbent who has overseen a de facto schism.
That lil office on the third floor facing Brattle St!
The similarity is such I first wondered if it was a cameo.
I believe the intention is to quote the prayer of penitence that the couple made at their wedding:
"We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us."
@@danielchiverton4168 This scene never happened as presented. The whole congregation joined in the prayer. Why not just present things properly. The intention was to distort. There was none of this level of angst amongst QEll, the church, Charles' sons, etc.
The actor portraying the Archbishop of Canterbury nailed it!
Fail, no cat entering the purple robe for the smaller rave 😂
The script and (arguably) his portrayal...
So, this show is pretty much people saying no to the Queen one way or another while she gives her reason why they should say yes. In different stages of her life.
Yep. And she was not alone.
All the Christian monarchs and rulers since the inception of the concept that 'God appoints his Holy Rulers' and 'humankind are subservient to the Church, as representatives of God's presence on Earth' .... That ALL monarchs & leaders in excess of some 1,700 years (since Rome adopted Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire) have been manipulative, exploitative, power mongering evil little people DELIGHTING in showcasing their power by NOT BEING merciful, forgiving, understanding and loving towards their congregants & positively problematic to the population at large, rulers and cruel without any cessation of such behaviour up to the modern age.
The Church is the reason why monarchies became even less popular than they would otherwise have been.
Under the watch of monarchies linked to the murderous & power hungry individuals in the Church, kings approved of taxing the poor double - 1x for the State & 2x penances/tithes to fund an excessively opulent Church, buildings & lifestyles for the clergy.
Under the watch of the Church, monarchies approved torture, imprisonment, all manner of excessively painful deaths (flaying, hanging drawing & quartering, burning at the stake) and events such as The Spanish Inquisition) which was nothing but the psychopathic evil of the Church on full display.
The Church contained scientific & technological advancement for a minimum of 600 years.
In 60 years we went from the Wright Brothers' attempts at flight to space travel.
Think of where we could have been in 600 years if people such as Copernicus and da Vinci had not been cowered into silence.
Religion has NO PLACE in the rule & control of people. In every case it becomes entirely corrupt & evil.
A religious life is one of choice & freewill submission to its tenets. Forgiveness and mercy are basic tenets in all major religions.
What the Church did to Charles in particular, but in effect to Diana (as the lamb to the slaughter) and the whole Royal Family was straight up a power grab and fundamentally evil.
That's life for all of us really.
Imelda Staunton delivers a perfect performance in this scene!
The problem isn't about marrying two divorcees. The problem is about marrying two adulterers.
Problem already solved.
I felt like the bishops explained that pretty well 🤷🏻♀️ but I also get that you can’t stand between two people in love, even if their love was often destructive.
@@OpalLeigh Their love was no more destructive than Diana's.
Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard find that amusing
@amandajstar. Well said. I agree. Their love was no more destructive than Diana's love, for sure! Dodi was engaged when he met Diana. His girlfriend Kelly FIsher, sued him for backing out. Diana, couldn't care less. Dodi was tired of Diana and her constant demands, supposedly. Diana was not into Dodi. Diana wanted Doctor Hasnet but Hasnet did not want Diana and....
The point about Charles ascending to the throne unmarried was spot on. There is no question that was then queen's primary focus. Whether or not the conversation went down like this or not,we will never know- but it drives the point home beautifully
She portrayed so well being queen
If the bishops really made Charles and Camilla say this, they must have really loved each other to agree to publicly humiliate themselves like that. Say what you will, these two should have always been together. I blame the senior royals for meddling into Charles’ love life and not letting him choose a bride that was suitable for him. It was a tragedy for all four of them that the marriages happened the way they did.
Their blessing did include the prayer of penitence.
They had nothing to apologize for, other than allowing others to prevent them from marrying in the first place. Long live King Charles and Queen Camilla!
They learned that lesson by the time it came to Prince William. He was able to choose, and made an excellent choice.
@@junipervip681idk having an open secret affair that became public and hurting your children and spouses come to mind. Imagine having every media source talk about your parent banging someone else.
Sentimental romantic love has no place in a dynastic monarchy.
I think getting a blessing was a proper proposal. The affair was certainly not the only cause of Diana's misery but , it was part of it.
What caused Diana's misery was that as a young girl of 20-odd she was courted by a Prince who had been told he could not marry the woman he really loved, Camilla.
The Church was at the root of all the DECADES, misery and - dare we say - decline of the public opinion of the Royal Family ever since.
@@lornalong6468 I intend to disagree a bit. The Church of England has always been a tail wagger for the British Parliament and the Royals. If one day Jesus came to the annual general synod of the church and asked the bishops to kiss him and on the other hand the parliament asked them to nail Jesus again to the cross. The bishops will run and crucify Jesus again and tell him and the world that this is the most righteous thing to be done as demanded by the public and cannons of the Church.😂😂
@@lornalong6468 18 and 19 not 20. And she was an ADULT at the age of 18 not a child of 8.
No a blessing would not be better especially since they wanted Charles and Camilla to admit they are filthy adulterers. Would you accept that nonsense just to be married?
@@NotMykl well said! Since Diana was old enough to get engaged at 19 according to her own mind then why wasn't Diana old enough to get married at 20? Where was the public out-cry back then in regards to Diana becoming a wife? 1981 was modern times. Even her mother thought she was very young and unfit for the position of princess of Wales. Diana was emotionally unstable and immature. As time goes by Diana was not 19 anymore she was not in her 20's but she eventually moved onto her 30's. Charles remained with his one true love Camilla but Diana was taking her married boyfriends to Kensington Palace - I feel bad for all the marriages she broke up - and all those innocent wives! These wives should have gone on Oprah! If Diana's marriage was too crowded with three people it was probably packed with 23 people including all of Diana's married boyfriends!
The bishops were like aww fuck not this road again.
The bishops had to advise and counsel and comfort and give the queen some guidance after all that IS their job. And they probably all like being in Buckingham Palace and getting to be with HRM again - they probably all have book deals going on! LOL 🤣🤣🤣.
Read the room, bishops:
The only reason y'all got jobs is cuz Henry VIII wanted to marry *HIS* mistress.
Yes but their objection is not so much on predicated fact that he has a mistress than on the fact that he wants to marry a divorced woman who was also very unpopular with the public and most likely with a large portion of the anglican communion. Henry VIII married his UNMARRIED mistress. Also a lot of people confuse annulment with divorce. Divorce is asking for a separation between to lawfully wedded persons. An annulment makes it so as if the marriage had never occured in the first place (and is only granted in limited circumstances).
That may have been the cause for their founding, but until more recent times the people of the Anglican "church" did believe that it was in fact the Church of God and serving it faithfully was a moral obligation. Serving God faithfully does entail not always being popular in the eyes of authority.
quite right. Many feel that Camilla and (then Prince) Charles should have been allowed to wed. I think that she realized that her time was nearing and there would be absolutely nothing she could do to stop it once the Crown passed to him. Yet she makes the decision to allow it because the calculation is that there would be LESS people upset with HER for allowing it than if she had refused and then (now King) Charles would do it anyways.
Well those "many" go sit in their closets lonely and never married then. No one gets to tell others who they can and can't marry when both parties are of age.
These bishops are generally correct. If this had been the exact same circumstances but involving ordinary British citizens, the church would never even consider blessing the marriage.
And they wonder why their membership is declining.
Couldn't stand her in harry potter, love her in this role. So good!
She’s been in many other roles as well.
love you guys!! so happy you're here!❤❤
Compare it with the scene in season one when HM meets the Bishops to discuss Princess Margaret’s. There the bishops were on the attack, here they star with “It is your right”
She's got them there, ironically being queen meant you have to have a bit of an ecumenical education too.
Her Majesty was very smart to quote Scripture and then make a very salient point.
The problem is that she misquoted Scripture. Nowhere will you find Him giving mercy to those who refuse to acknowledge they have sinned. This is a simple fact.
i think it is important to differentiate between Elizabeth's lack of higher education and her intelligence. The more one learns of her reign, the more difficult it becomes to dismiss her as not-too-bright.
Thank you for being mindful of deaf and hard of hearing people and ensuring closed captioning is available.
If they were really worried about fracturing the Anglican communion then they have done a terrible job here lately. GAFCON no longer recognizes the Archbishop of Canterbury as the first among equals because of their adoption of theological liberalism in the CofE.
The Church, of whatever hue, delights in pomposity. Her Majesty puts them in place by reminding them that God does not hold a grudge forever as He delights in forgiveness. I think that is what we are very much short of in today's world, forgiveness.
Or that there is no god and we don't need hereditary monarchy. And if they claim to rule because they are better than us then they should follow their own standards.
The translation of that verse is actually incorrect. If it is the verse in Micah I am thinking of, the translation is actually "for He desires kindness"
Jesus himself speaks against this very thing what Charles and Camilla are doing is adultery and sin
mercy and justice are both required- do away with justice and you have a weak god, who has no standards, and a "do what thou wilt' attitude results. Do without mercy and you have a tyrant god, who dangles us over the fires of hell, waiting to cast us in at the first sign of weakness. I believe justice and mercy play vital roles in our progression, but of course you are welcome to believe in whatever you fancy.
@@deeh5126I was discussing the translation of the verse. That is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
The church should not have moved the goal posts for them. His uncle stepped back for love so Charles should have done the same .
She moved the goalposts on Margaret.
Well this being a fantasy show, one can be happy to know that HM was right and did not follow suit on the alleged advice given by the Bishops.
She did
Actually, she did.
They made all the arrangements, then the pope died, and they had to postpone the wedding! Was God trying to tell them something!
@davidboult4143 Pope John Paul II death only delayed the wedding by one day. The wedding was planned for the 8th, it ended up occuring on the 9th. And really it was his funeral that delayed it, not the death itself. The pope died on April 2. The funeral was on the 8th. Charles attended the funeral at the Vatican. Duty first.
@@Secretagent71114 it was hilarious that it was delayed. They had already looked foolish by trying to have a civil ceremony in Windsor Castle, but the Queen banned the special permission for a wedding venue, when she realised that any member of the public could use it. It seemed as if nothing could go right, which made it look as if someone was trying to tell them something.
Honestly one wonders how things would have turned out (in terms of public perception) if Charles had been able to marry Camilla from the very start and never wed Diana. How would the public feel about Camilla? What would Diana's life have looked like?
If I recall correctly, the deal at the time was that Camilla would not become queen upon the death of Elizabeth II. ???
The Princess Consort thing was no binding deal… It was presented that way in a text at Clarence House’s website to calm the public hysteria…. No british Consort of the Monarch have ever been known as ”Princess Consort” and there was no chance they would allow Camilla to be the first…. The British History are full of Kings who have done far worse things than Charles….
Yes, that was the announced "intention", but, towards the end of her life, the late Queen relaxed it to allow Camilla to be styled "Queen Consort".
@@BucyKalmanQueen consort is her role, Queen is her title..
Once married, by law, she was going to be Queen when Charles became King. George IV couldn't even deny his estranged wife the title not that QEll nor Charles wished to do so to Camilla.
it was said at the time, but peoples views on the subject softened over the years.
The scene is the counterpart to the meetings a generation earlier, where the Queen asked the bishops and the government to allow Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend to marry. At that time, the bishops to whom she offered seats flatly refused. And the prime minister at the time told her to her face that his group would not give its approval under the marriage law, even though there were even then several divorced and remarried ministers in the cabinet - disgusting double standards.
And although she still doesn't like Charles and Camilla, she campaigns for their marriage, and this time with success.
The Crown is not real. QEll was very happy to facilitate and instrumental lobbying the CoE and lawmakers for the changes that allowed the marriage of Charles and Camilla.
This episode is like the culmination of 6 seasons of plotlines and story structure building.
A double standard, but the other guys weren't the head of the Church of England. The queen campaigns for her boy, while the bishops worry about what it will do to the congregation in general. To my mind, the whole concept of a church being headed by a king is pretty nutty. There is a can of worms opened with this. Does one hold to doctrine or "change with the times"? Does one change with the times only because it is advantageous to her son?
@@500dollarjapanesetoaster8 Charles wasn't yet Head of the CoE either at the time and the decision determined if he would remain next in the LoS just as it did with Margaret who, though not direct heir, was the next adult in line to the throne at the time so not inconsequential. Neither the CoE nor QEll were resistant as presented here having changed with the times and witnessing the damage caused to the previous, concurrent and subsequent generations of her family. William and Harry had it easy by comparison.
Watching this is hilarious given that the Church of England came about because of a king who wanted to dump his wife.
Henry wasnt Protestant. See the Six Articles 1539 and you can see he was just a caesaropapist.
A simplistic caricature that contributes nothing to any debate between educated and thoughtful people.
This is such nonsense their church was founded on divorce.
I'm not an Anglican but I am thinking that the Anglican Church was founded with Christ in mind. England still had to retain their Christian faith. The Anglican Church wasn't founded ON divorce. It was founded in spite of divorce and to keep Christian morals, values and hope alive.
@@JoanMorrison-vq2jc Is that so? or was the anglican church founded because King heny VIII threw a fit when the pope didnt want to annul his divorce? The Christian faith was aready being retained in the Catholic church yet Henry(unlike luther) didnt break away from the church for thelogical reasons but set his mind to apostacy from the true faith for the sake of carnel desire and autonomu from the pope. Bad enought the marriage with Catherine of aragon would be just the first divorce in his reign! truly this founder had "Christ in mind" or was it a rebellious spirit and a lust filled vision? In conclusion this church shouldnt be giving anyone problems about divorce and remarriage since their church was concived I that very sin! The Anglican community wasnt founded in in spite of Divorce but in the spirit of divorce and the selfishness of one man, thus this church wasnt meant to keep christian morals, and values but the creation of the church and is subsequent teaching is a continuous attack on Christ teacher. "what God has brought together, let no man seperate" Mt 19:6 also sorry if I come off a little harsh forgive my tone.
it's way more complicated than that. First, he wanted an annulment, a divorce is to break the marriage, an annulment is to declare the marriage null and it was never valid or real. When the pope refused to give him an annulment, Henry VIII was mad for that but also because he didn't like that the pape could say no to him. He decided that if the pope couldn't give him an annulment, then he was going to give him one himself.
Henry VIII wanted an annulment from his first wife, not a divorce.
@@lynne709 Doesn't Princess Margaret in the Crown say hers was the first royal divorce since Henry VIII ?
The queen really got them there!!!!!!
As a catholic who completely supports my Queen and her son Charles now I cannot but find amusement at the bishops acting very catholic with this current conundrum. God speed lads and God bless the king 🙏
Theologically and cannonically it has never been controvertial for a widower to re-marry. Illustrated here is the major problem of a constutional church whose Bishops are Peers of the realm eg. 'Lord Bishops'. Become a politician and your theology goes onto a llst of other issues to consider!
The problem wasn't Charles, it was Camilla - Andrew Parker Bowles was and is still alive.
"Christ, not Man, is King" - Cromwell
A king is to be honored, for he represents the office given him by God (Romans 13:1) as Moses said of the Israelites, “I know how rebellious you are” (Deut 31:27). Rebellion is more than being ignorant of God's ways or being independent, it is not obeying His commands or being submissive to divinely appointed authorities, instead going one's own way (1 Sam 12:15; Isa 53:6; Rom 13:1,2,5).
Cromwell, is more than right!
This Rowan Williams is more Rowan Williams than the real Rowan Williams. 😂
The resemblance is amazing.
Since the Church of England was founded because Henry 8th wanted to constantly re-marry they have no grounds to say anything regarding a Royals choice of marriage
God bless her majesties memory
Simmering With Barely Concealed Rage Lizzy is Best Lizzy
As much as I try to understand religion, the one thing I feel all should learn to respect is as Queen Elizabeth said: it's better to divorce rather than live in sin. Marriage is indeed sacred, but if it's not treated as sacred, then it is not a marriage, there forth divorce is not a sin. If one must have a cleansing to ask for God's forgiveness of what happened during that no-sacred-marriage, then so be it. But a new marriage should not be looked down on for the wrongs committed in the first.
Queen Elizabeth II, you have to remember the SECOND part.
Imelda Staunton is a perfect older Queen Elizabeth.
It's a Register Office not a Registry Office. I don't think the late Queen would have got that wrong.
What I loved about this scene is, it felt like she finally stood up for what she wanted to do rather than acclimate to what others preferred. She did that with Margaret, to a lesser extent with Charles when he originally wanted to marry Camila back when they were still free agents. This felt like she was finally making a decision that came from her both as a mother and as queen. And yes, trolls. I know it’s fiction. I’m talking about this in that context.
Durinf a ski trip, Charles did NOT want to attend the funeral of Diana's FATHER. Tell me about generosity.
I would also not go to the funeral of the father of my estranged wife
@@rickardnyberg4899That’s the thing about this guy: we, ordinary subjects, are allowed to live our lives according to our own whims and caprices, but he, as the (future) king, is not allowed to conduct his life by sentimentality, he is supposed to put feelings aside and do the right thing.
He did attend though, and they were still legally married when the Earl died.
Here is the thing. When you are in a position like King Charles, you have to be conscious of what your presence does.
His attendance brings the need for security and it also brings media attention. It's often a much more compassionate and courteous decision for them to send private condolences, and not attend the event. Just like when the Princess of Wales didn't take on a role in Pippa's wedding.
She didn't want him to go.
So? Is there a reason he has to attend the funeral?
Every single scene I have watched of this series sounds like it was written by journalists quickly pushing out a Review of the Year column. The very thought of the Archbish of Canterbury mansplaining to the Queen about what the public believed caused the breakdown of Charles's marriage strikes me as beyond hackery. You wonder what an actor of Imelda Staunton's calibre must have made of this second rate dialogue.
It's not mansplaining. I imagine you watch women's soccer every night praying that they will notice you one day.
Archbishop of Canterbury 🤣🤣 rowan williams 0:33
It's hard (for me) to look this up and realize that she would remain the Queen for another 17 years after this conversation took place.
They say some of the crown was made up and I am thinking this meeting is one of them!
I don't know if in reality that's exactly what the Queen said, but if she did, it was more than a sound argument. Little lady always wins.
A registery office is good enough for the rest of us
The sight of so many wealthy, privileged, and utterly irrelevant people together in one room is simply breathtaking.
That's basically the whole show.
'My lord bishops, I have asked you here because I'd like to grant my permission to have my son marry camilla .... and I want you to try and talk me out of it'
That is what happen when Henry VIII made himself head of the English church and the anglicans has to bear the consequence of such person including Charley!
I'll bet one part of her was thinking in her distinctive humour: "Who will rid me of these troublesome priests?" as one of her predecessors was reputed to have said.
Her Majesty was wiley!
Oh for Gods sake, Henry VIII created this church so the monarch could have their own way!
The whole attitude of the CofE about the remarriage of the Prince of Wales was so hypocritical - the whole reason why the CofE came about was so King Henry VIII could marry as a divorcee!
Henry would have argued that his marriage to his first wife was illegitimate and, therefore, never occurred. The second was invalidated by fraud and adultery. The third was valid, but he was a widow, the fourth was never consumated, the fifth was invalid for the same reasons as the second, and the sixth was valid because she outlived him.
Of course, it is the type of logic a monster who murdered 2-3% of his own citizens by execution would come up with.
Henry sought an annulment of his marriage to Catherine, not a divorce.
@@VydioHenry VIII was never going to get it, Catherine of Aragon was a royal Catholic princess by birth with powerful religious and political family connections. (With the exception of Anne of Cleves, a minor German princess, all subsequent wives were English only so that he could do as he pleased with them.) Also, Catherine's father King Ferdinand made sure that a papal dispensation was received for her marriage with Henry due to her being Arthur's widow.
Henry's CoE was basically Catholic, except he was the pope. Divorce was not freely granted and many were forced to remain with estranged partners. He was just a special little button. Also, since then there had been three Catholic monarchs in the throne.
“Wickedness”?!🫤
Anthony Eden became a bishop after he resigned.
No he didn't. He became a cattle breeder. His farm was a mile away from my great grandmother's house.
I wonder when the church is going to ask forgiveness for past wickedness?!!
🤔 oh, hang on, it’s still going on!!!
It's ironic that the church is so hypocritical seeing as it's very existence was due to a divorce
She should have fired all the woke/communist bishops!!
The Bishop who did most talking looks so familiar... Can anyone tell me the name of the actor?
Me too. He looks familiar. I thought he was in various British films or shows.
@@dobazajr He is General Strutt from my Most Favorite Downton Abbey!! God how could I not recognize him at first glance! Tom tried to throw cowpat on him... The actor is Julian Wadham....
@@shubhuful oh wow. I love Downton Abbey too but I think I most recognized him in Maurice and The Madness of King George. Thanks though for the info.
everybody got to get up in everybody else business.
Henry VIII. turning in this grave...
It never occurred to me that he had to ask permission to marry Camilla even though I know about The Royal Marriages Act. Personally, I think that act needs to be updated given Prince Harry's disastrous union to The Bride Of Hankenstein
The queen doesn’t give these guys a seat - good
@MJqb5ph. Maybe in real life she did give them a seat as the queen did on the other episodes. Be it sit or stand they are there to help the queen and to sort all this out. As the saying goes "two heads are better than one". Queen Elizabeth, probably relied on their counsel and honesty and clarity and...
Not a sound all thru the castle
The sound of the clock ticking is SO loud.
As Head of the Church of England, she has displayed her prowess in the Scriptures by quoting the Book of Micah 7:18. Superb!
Yes, God delighteth in mercy--and yet he still wants penitence for sin.
Why didn’t the bishops bow?
People seem to forget that Jesus said if your partner is unfaithful, divorce IS permitted.
The Queen was graceful enough to give her blessing to this union.. At least she is resting comfortably in her grave knowing that the lineage of Windsor is not tied to Alice Keppel, a notorious and damned mistress, who happens to be the great great grandmother of Camilla, also the fact that their wedding anniversary is the same day as Prince Philip's death date is serendipitously morose...
No one cares what happened that far back.
The bishops where there for the blood 🩸
The “Anglican Communion” haha, that’s laughable. It’s what you get when an absolutist monarch in all but name tried to have it both ways.
A king is to be honored, for he represents the office given him by God (Romans 13:1)
I doubt it when down like this. The Anglican Church (Episcopal Church in the US) is one of the most liberal denominations out there.
Am I the only person who's ever wondered whether Rowan Williams and Terry Pratchett were the same person?
Bishops: 😡 WE DON'T FUQ WITH HER
Imelda Staunton is such a great actress. But as much as I understand that the Queen is portrayed in the last two seasons in her most trying and difficult years, she tends to constantly portray the Queen as if she's about to break down in tears which obviously is very uncharacteristic lol
Quite a contrast to her also excellent comedic role as Knotgrass
This is why you dont leave the Church for silly prot sects. Marriage is for life, divorce and remarriage is forbidden.
That was a mistake
Imagine the Anglican church frowning on the marriage of divorcees when it was founded solely so Henry VIII could divorce Catherine of Aragon.
Church of England ok’d with Umbridge.
It’s all so ridiculous, all of it. What a giant waste of resources.
Should all the resources be shifted to Gaza or some downtrodden region?
The state of the CofE, only gotten worse since.
Has the british general synod really eased its stance on the marriage of divocees?
I found out that in July 2002, the General Synod passed this motion by 269 votes to 83:
Recognise - i) That some marriages regrettably do fail and that the Church’s care for couples in that situation should be of paramount importance; and ii) That there are exceptional circumstances in which a divorced person may be married in church during the lifetime of a former spouse;
c) Recognise that the decision as to whether or not to solemnise such a marriage in church after divorce rests with the minister (or officiating cleric if the minister is prepared to allow his/her church or chapel to be used for the marriage) and; d) Invite the House of Bishops to issue the advice contained in Annex 1 of GS 1449.
Dislike( honestly, after this, she stopped to be a real ruler in my eyes. It’s mean that she could close her eyes for everything if it made by her child, but she was principal for other person’s and judged them
It always amazes me how easily some denominations can completely disregard the words of Jesus regarding divorce. I won’t pass judgment against anyone who was involved or on Charles and Camilla themselves, but the simple truth is that she was married, there has been no annulment and her first husband is still alive.
You mean Matthew, 19, 8: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19, 9: ) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Jesus talks about the mythical-theocratic law of those days and interprets those in the spirit of the old testament. He refers to a compromise between Gods will and the hard heart of the people - and He considers separation adultery, pointing out that this compromise is sin. God permits and and it is a sin - this is the story of the old testament is a nutshell, replaced by the Word of Jesus. No religious laws anymore - but the constant recreation of moral systems as a social construct of the homo ethicus, which condemns - but that is just useful in the sociological sense, because morals keep society together. This is the law without God, which only can be broken and fulfilled in the Love that is Jesus Christ. So talking about divorce is pointless now.
@@koboDresden I have to strongly disagree with you on this. It is not pointless to talk about divorce as Jesus has plainly spelled out what is and is not a sin and somehow we are still getting it wrong 2000 years later. Jesus didn’t come to get rid of the law but to fulfil it perfectly so that we can follow in his footsteps. He clarified the difference between God’s immutable law and the mere pharisaic traditions and outright falsehoods that had come to surround it.
Jesus didn’t give himself over to the cross and rise again so we can have a free pass to sin as we like because somehow he had removed God’s immutable law, he freed us so that we can be holy as our Father in heaven is Holy. He set us free for a life of freedom, and living according to God’s law is freedom.
@@gavanhill5132 Sin is a mythical concept it has no relevance today. We are flawed and full of errors and mistakes and ignorance - but every bad action or intent or state is just an existential phenomena. We improve on that as humans individually and socially by reflection through knowledge and experience and science. This is how we realize how God created the world and us and through Jesus we can have the compassion and love to act from day to day against our bad behaviour. The rules of the world and how our morality is made in that material context are the rules Jesus talks about as unchangeable - since God created the universe with set rules and laws. Moral rules and laws are easily changeable, that was demonstrated multiple times even by Christianity so Jesus couldn't have talked about those.
Penance for past wickedness 😂
Cults are the most evil inventions.
She was perfectly willing to deny her sister a marriage to a divorced man, under far less shady circumstances.
ah... but she was much younger and less wise. Age changes us, as much as we would like to think otherwise.
You can't compare 2005 with the 1950's. Society was far more rigid about everything back then, and that translated to Parliament and the bishops strictly opposing it no matter what. It took decades for them to relax the rules. Also, Margaret was offered the option of giving up her royal privileges to marry Peter, but she herself decided she'd rather keep the privileges.
Should have got maureen lipman to play the queen elizabeth 2
What about the story of relationship of Camilla and Prince Charles? It started before Charles met Diana. Maybe Queen felt a bit of responsibility of whole tragedy. Is it true decisive people won't allow to increase the love between prince and Camilla? How it was?
P.S. I'm all in all admiring the Reign of Queen.
They should have been allowed to marry in the first place!! How can you be head of the church and be a sinner is beyond me. I totally agree with the Bishops in making the dogs admit to their sins in order to be married.
Her whole life she held firm to her principles, even when it came to her own uncle and sister, only to take a dump on them, for the philandering divorcee, who would marry the horse and become king of England.
The practice of marrying young women solely for the purpose of "royal" breeding is so shameful that I find it impossible to be sympathetic to Charles or anyone else in this situation other than Diana. By the way, if you think this was convoluted, screwing up the line of succession by dodgy marriage practices has been a "thing" at least since the reign of Edward IV. And no doubt before.
He married her thinking that she will adjust to the family and its norms. But later he found that the girl was mentally ill.
@@fahimfaisalmahir567 Well said!! I think had Charles dated Diana longer Charles would have seen how disturbed 😣😣 Diana was but remember one thing Diana, was also a master manipulator. When they were first dating Diana faked her love for Balmoral or hiking or fishing or wildlife or whatever Balmoral had to offer - she really conned Charles because Diana, secretly hated her time at Balmoral she only wanted to be a princess and have the media on her side. Sad....
Atonement? Charles? 😂😂😂😂
@Dabhach1. Did Diana show any signs of atonement when she took her married boyfriends back to Kensington Palace? I feel bad for their innocent wives and children. How many marriages did Diana break up?!
@@JoanMorrison-vq2jc Yeah, ok, then, they're both no good.