Can someone please explain....

[Josh B]

Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?

Perplexing!

[MyDogIsGod]

Josh B wrote:

> Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
> a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
> presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>
> I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
> by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>
> Perplexing!

According to current legislation, if they had the civil ceremony at Windsor
Castle, then anyone could ask to be married there.

So they had the civil ceremony at a place that does civil ceremonies (the
local town hall), and the second ceremony at a place that holds 800.

[whoot-at-me]

"MyDogIsGod" <DogIsGod@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4257e8b7_4@x-privat.org...
> Josh B wrote:
>
>> Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>> a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding
>> ceremony
>> presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>
>> I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage
>> blessed
>> by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>
>> Perplexing!
>
> According to current legislation, if they had the civil ceremony at
> Windsor
> Castle, then anyone could ask to be married there.
>
> So they had the civil ceremony at a place that does civil ceremonies (the
> local town hall), and the second ceremony at a place that holds 800.

As the OP asked, why did they need the civil ceremony at all?

[MyDogIsGod]

whoot-at-me wrote:

>
>
> As the OP asked, why did they need the civil ceremony at all?

They weren't married again in the second ceremony. It wasn't needed.

[Big LN]

MyDogIsGod <DogIsGod@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Josh B wrote:
>
>> Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>> a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
>> presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>
>> I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
>> by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>
>> Perplexing!
>
>According to current legislation, if they had the civil ceremony at Windsor
>Castle, then anyone could ask to be married there.
>
>So they had the civil ceremony at a place that does civil ceremonies (the
>local town hall), and the second ceremony at a place that holds 800.

Well said.

'Onya

[Horace Wachope]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:38:13 +1000, MyDogIsGod <DogIsGod@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>Josh B wrote:
>
>> Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>> a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
>> presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>
>> I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
>> by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>
>> Perplexing!
>
>According to current legislation, if they had the civil ceremony at Windsor
>Castle, then anyone could ask to be married there.

You'd think Parliament would be willing to enact legislation to
overcome this. Assuming the Government were asked to introduce such a
Bill. Perhaps the Queen doesn't want the wedding at Windsor Castle
(or Buckingham Palace), and this was a convenient excuse?


--

My BeNcH pReSs BrInGs All ThE GirLs To ThE yArD, n ThEy'Re LiKe,
YoUr PeCs ArE LaRgE, dAmN rIgHt My PeCs ArE LaRgE, u CaN tOuCh
ThEm, bUt IlL hAv To ChArGe.

[Dave Proctor]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:05:43 +1000, Josh B
<joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote:

>Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
>presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>
>I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
>by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?

Because the Church of England could not marry them, since she was a
divorcee with an ex- who was alive. Chuckie could re-marry in the
church, but she could not. Hence the need for the civil ceremony.

The blessing ceremony was to grant the marriage the blessing which the
civil cermony could not.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

[Dave Proctor]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:38:13 +1000, MyDogIsGod <DogIsGod@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>Josh B wrote:
>
>> Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>> a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
>> presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>
>> I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
>> by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>
>> Perplexing!
>
>According to current legislation, if they had the civil ceremony at Windsor
>Castle, then anyone could ask to be married there.

And this is relevant to what was asked how?

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

[whoot-at-me]

"Dave Proctor" <thadocta@SPAMBAIT.westnet.REMOVE.com.au> wrote in message
news:468g511ojnjspnj8dbk0h8upbp8jcgnke3@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:05:43 +1000, Josh B
> <joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote:
>
>>Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>>a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
>>presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>
>>I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
>>by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>
> Because the Church of England could not marry them, since she was a
> divorcee with an ex- who was alive. Chuckie could re-marry in the
> church, but she could not. Hence the need for the civil ceremony.
>
> The blessing ceremony was to grant the marriage the blessing which the
> civil cermony could not.

So they could not be married in the church but the church could bless the
marriage anyway? Seems weird to me.

I wonder why Charlie just didn't go ahead and start his own church.

[steam3801]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:38:14 +1000, Dave Proctor
<thadocta@SPAMBAIT.westnet.REMOVE.com.au> - in a blinding flash of
brilliance - wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:05:43 +1000, Josh B
><joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote:
>
>>Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>>a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding ceremony
>>presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>
>>I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage blessed
>>by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>
>Because the Church of England could not marry them, since she was a
>divorcee with an ex- who was alive. Chuckie could re-marry in the
>church, but she could not. Hence the need for the civil ceremony.

Hehehehe Doncha just love the hypocrisy of the Church of England ... I
was always taught that the whole raison d'être for the C of E was when
Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church so he could MARRY A
DIVORCED WOMAN!!!!!

--
steam3801
ASCII a silly question, get a silly ANSI

[Firefly]

"steam3801" <tryspammingthis@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:6rhg51ll6d9ovupmvtctqfo25oupmqrhlo@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:38:14 +1000, Dave Proctor
> <thadocta@SPAMBAIT.westnet.REMOVE.com.au> - in a blinding flash of
> brilliance - wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:05:43 +1000, Josh B
>><joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>>>a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding
>>>ceremony
>>>presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>>
>>>I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage
>>>blessed
>>>by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>
>>Because the Church of England could not marry them, since she was a
>>divorcee with an ex- who was alive. Chuckie could re-marry in the
>>church, but she could not. Hence the need for the civil ceremony.
>
> Hehehehe Doncha just love the hypocrisy of the Church of England ... I
> was always taught that the whole raison d'être for the C of E was when
> Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church so he could MARRY A
> DIVORCED WOMAN!!!!!

Whoever taught you should be excommunicated. Henry VIII broke away from the
Catholic church because the Pope refused to allow him to divorce Catherine
of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn.

[steam3801]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:40:19 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> -
in a blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:

>
>"steam3801" <tryspammingthis@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:6rhg51ll6d9ovupmvtctqfo25oupmqrhlo@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:38:14 +1000, Dave Proctor
>> <thadocta@SPAMBAIT.westnet.REMOVE.com.au> - in a blinding flash of
>> brilliance - wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:05:43 +1000, Josh B
>>><joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered having
>>>>a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding
>>>>ceremony
>>>>presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>>>
>>>>I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage
>>>>blessed
>>>>by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>>
>>>Because the Church of England could not marry them, since she was a
>>>divorcee with an ex- who was alive. Chuckie could re-marry in the
>>>church, but she could not. Hence the need for the civil ceremony.
>>
>> Hehehehe Doncha just love the hypocrisy of the Church of England ... I
>> was always taught that the whole raison d'être for the C of E was when
>> Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church so he could MARRY A
>> DIVORCED WOMAN!!!!!
>
>Whoever taught you should be excommunicated. Henry VIII broke away from the
>Catholic church because the Pope refused to allow him to divorce Catherine
>of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn.

.... which means the Church would have to refuse to (re)marry a
divorced person!! Uh Duh!

--
steam3801
ASCII a silly question, get a silly ANSI

[Firefly]

"steam3801" <tryspammingthis@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:l4jg51tscne9io6ur4iqkj3sbn5eghkijo@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:40:19 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> -
> in a blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
>>
>>"steam3801" <tryspammingthis@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:6rhg51ll6d9ovupmvtctqfo25oupmqrhlo@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:38:14 +1000, Dave Proctor
>>> <thadocta@SPAMBAIT.westnet.REMOVE.com.au> - in a blinding flash of
>>> brilliance - wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:05:43 +1000, Josh B
>>>><joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered
>>>>>having
>>>>>a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding
>>>>>ceremony
>>>>>presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage
>>>>>blessed
>>>>>by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>>>
>>>>Because the Church of England could not marry them, since she was a
>>>>divorcee with an ex- who was alive. Chuckie could re-marry in the
>>>>church, but she could not. Hence the need for the civil ceremony.
>>>
>>> Hehehehe Doncha just love the hypocrisy of the Church of England ... I
>>> was always taught that the whole raison d'être for the C of E was when
>>> Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church so he could MARRY A
>>> DIVORCED WOMAN!!!!!
>>
>>Whoever taught you should be excommunicated. Henry VIII broke away from
>>the
>>Catholic church because the Pope refused to allow him to divorce Catherine
>>of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn.
>
> ... which means the Church would have to refuse to (re)marry a
> divorced person!! Uh Duh!

It does. If you've been divorced you can't remarry in the Catholic Church.

[David Hardie]

In article <fu6g51p6sfj01duv179dm5f708p2dh7rm3@4ax.com>, Horace Wachope
<horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:


>You'd think Parliament would be willing to enact legislation to
>overcome this. Assuming the Government were asked to introduce such a
>Bill. Perhaps the Queen doesn't want the wedding at Windsor Castle
>(or Buckingham Palace), and this was a convenient excuse?

Well it has been several centuries since Parliment has acted on the wishes
of the monarchy.

The Archbishop of Cantebury (andthe wider C/E) had problems with the marriage.

D.

[damnfine]

Can someone please explain why anyone would give a shit?


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Where is Richard Nixon when we finally need him?"
- Hunter S. Thompson

[Stephen Brooker]

damnfine wrote:
> Can someone please explain why anyone would give a shit?
>
>

Ditto!

[Brad Hogan]

"MyDogIsGod" <DogIsGod@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4257f04b_3@x-privat.org...
> whoot-at-me wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As the OP asked, why did they need the civil ceremony at all?
>
> They weren't married again in the second ceremony. It wasn't needed.

The service was a lot like a wedding, with a lot of the wedding service cut
out
but it contained one crucial sentence that was new.

"You are now married according to LAW, and this church will now bless that
marraige".

The law says that they are married so the church cant do anything at all
about it.
The church refuses to marry divorced people so it doesnt appear
hipocritical,
but it is willing to bless any marraige that is legal.


The civil service was held in a private place,

the most likely reason to make it SO restricted was probably so that no one
could yell out "I object in the name of god , and of the queen", which
could then lead to a court case which had to decide if the objection was
valid or not.


The marraige *might* not be legal if done in a cathedral, or such, even if
it was done by a celebrant/registrar .. the problem is the number of laws
from the last 1000 years which might regulate the marriage. They could have
asked parliament for laws to allow it, but then that would be a process that
would drag on and on, as the opposition would be constantly testing the
Government on their knowledge of the laws, and the government would be
quite keen to allow the marriage just as quickly as possible...

eg A quick way to allow the marraige would be "We revoke the title of Prince
of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Price , from Charles Window. He is now free
to marry whoever he damm well pleases. .. We resume the Duchy of Cornwall,
and all Duchies from him. We terminate the state list and we terminate the
giving of titles such as King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Duke . .."


IE the end of the English/UKGB royal family and families.

[Kwyjibo.]

Stephen Brooker <eclecticgeek@netspace.net.au> said

> damnfine wrote:
>> Can someone please explain why anyone would give a shit?
>>
>>
>
> Ditto!
>

Could someone please explain why two tools would respond to a thread they
have admitted to having no interest in?

--


Kwyj.

(Remove your finger from that dyke to reply by email)

[Dave Proctor]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 22:39:00 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com>
wrote:

>
>"steam3801" <tryspammingthis@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:l4jg51tscne9io6ur4iqkj3sbn5eghkijo@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:40:19 GMT, "Firefly" <brightlight@nite.com> -
>> in a blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"steam3801" <tryspammingthis@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:6rhg51ll6d9ovupmvtctqfo25oupmqrhlo@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:38:14 +1000, Dave Proctor
>>>> <thadocta@SPAMBAIT.westnet.REMOVE.com.au> - in a blinding flash of
>>>> brilliance - wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:05:43 +1000, Josh B
>>>>><joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Can someone please explain to me why Chucky and Horseface bothered
>>>>>>having
>>>>>>a civil wedding ceremony if they had almost a full church wedding
>>>>>>ceremony
>>>>>>presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand they needed the church service to have their marriage
>>>>>>blessed
>>>>>>by the church, so why bother having the civil ceremony at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because the Church of England could not marry them, since she was a
>>>>>divorcee with an ex- who was alive. Chuckie could re-marry in the
>>>>>church, but she could not. Hence the need for the civil ceremony.
>>>>
>>>> Hehehehe Doncha just love the hypocrisy of the Church of England ... I
>>>> was always taught that the whole raison d'être for the C of E was when
>>>> Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church so he could MARRY A
>>>> DIVORCED WOMAN!!!!!
>>>
>>>Whoever taught you should be excommunicated. Henry VIII broke away from
>>>the
>>>Catholic church because the Pope refused to allow him to divorce Catherine
>>>of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn.
>>
>> ... which means the Church would have to refuse to (re)marry a
>> divorced person!! Uh Duh!
>
>It does. If you've been divorced you can't remarry in the Catholic Church.

There are ways and means.....

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

[Firefly]

"Brad Hogan" <brad@pitt.comn> wrote in message
news:42587934@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> eg A quick way to allow the marraige would be "We revoke the title of
> Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Price , from Charles Window.

I thought his name was Windsor.

> We resume the Duchy of Cornwall, and all Duchies from him.

Would he have tp pass the Duchies on the left hand side?

>We terminate the state list and we terminate the giving of titles such as
>King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Duke . .."
>
> IE the end of the English/UKGB royal family and families.

Just as well. They're not the real royal family anyway.