OT:Royal Rumour?

What about the Grand National? I understand that some people are annoyed that the timing of this race has had to be changed so as not to coincide with the "wedding". Seriously, I would be interested in your assessment, Pat, of how you think the British public actually reacts to the wedding itself. I am sure our media coverage will not adequately give a true representation of this. TIA.

-- Jim Cripwell. From Canada. Land of the Key Bird. This creature of doom flies over the frozen tundra in winter, shrieking its dreaded call; "Key, Key, Key, Key rist but it's cold!!"

That`s the whole objection, Ruby - the Royals, at least in the past hundred years and more, had grown to be a pretty good example. It`s a shame to see them lowering themselves to the current trends in marriage.

Yes, he will reign - if the public don`t make enough fuss about it! I just have a feeling that they might, although knowing we Brits, we may just let it happen, but carry on moaning about them! One thing I am sure of is that they will always be made fully aware of our disapproval! ;-))

Pat P

Oh I will, unless there IS a rugby match - and of course the Grand National is on after the wedding!

The funeral is just finished - absolutely splendid. I`m an atheist but a great admirer of the Pope. I know you aren`t, but there, YOU can`t help having some strange ideas!!!LOL!

Pat P

I watched a snatch this morning as I laboured on my treadmill. Row upon row of men, and little altar boys of course, really says NO WOMEN to me.

At the moment I`d say that the British Public are definitely underwhelmed! Everyone seems to be thoroughly enjoying all the things that have been going wrong, so far.

There was a programme on tv last night with a lot of Camilla`s friends saying how nice she was, how down to earth, what a great sense of humour she has, how they`re so much in love - I`m sure she is, but they were totally missing the point that she was (and the Prince, of course) a sneaky adulterous old slapper marrying a spineless old grump who should have had the guts to stand on his own two feet and picked his own bride right from the start. This is coming from once confirmed Royalists, mind you! It still makes me puke to see some idiots CURTSEYING to her!

We`ll see what the reaction is tomorrow.

Interesting that the Queen is not "Receiving" them when they return to Windsor Castle. She`s too busy hosting a lunch for the visiting European Royals. It`s said that Charles and Phillip rarely speak - they usually communicate by means of notes. Talk about Happy Families.

It`s almost like something from Gilbert and Sullivan - what a comic opera THEY would have made of it! Even the Pope got it right and messed it up for them, bless him!

Pat P

Asv long as we could chuck them out if they didn`t "come good", it would do it for me!

Pat P

Not Katharine of Aragon - she married Henry VIII and it was because she only had a daughter (Mary Tudor) that he divorced her to marry Anne Bolyn (Elizabeth's mother).

Henry II married Elenor of Aquitaine, and they did have five children.

Marg

She pointed out the evidence within the gospels. You'll also note that she is referring to early Christian writings where Mary Magdelane is called the "apostle to the apostles" You need to reread your new testament - there is quite a bit of evidence tha women, including Dorcas were very active in the early church.

If you read the closing to many of the letters (such as Timothy II) you will see women's names mentioned along with the males (2 Tim, Chapter 4, verse 21...."and Claudia and all the brethen")

If you are so closed minded as to ignore more than 50% of the human race then so be it, to think that you have to have testicles to be a priest is pretty pathetic.

Marg

So what? There are occasions and organisations where it`s best to have no MEN? I have no time for raving feminists really - I think they threw the baby out with the bath-water. There were quite a few women there, in any case. I certainly have no time for women "priests" - totally ludicrous. There were no women apostles, were there?

Pat P

What's your point? That things should never change?? some of those apostles were married. Abortion was not against church teaching until fairly recently in its history either. Just because the powers at the time left out of the new testament the writings of women in the early church does not mean they did not have any power in the early church. Pagan critics of the church (Porphyry died Ad 305) maintained that the church was ruled by women. According to Paul "There is neither male nor female:for you are all one in Christ Jesus" . Of course he like many others writers tended to contradict them selves. It seemed to depend to whom he was writing, which congregation, church. I guess he didn't figure that those letters would become a large part of the new testament. The Pauline view gets a lot of press in the new testament. And the fellows in charge only use the quotes that enforce their point of view. As of course I am doing. It would seem if one reads even the books of the new testament there is ample ammunition for the contrary view of women in the church. The new testament are not the only early Christian writings or views. Ruby PS Porphyry goggle him to read a little of his views.

Big disagreement there. Plenty of female ministers over here and the most moving funerals I have attended have been conducted by women. They took the time to find out all about the person (if in fact they did not know them) spoke nicely about the attributes of the person and did not bore anyone. Our local female minister in Shad Bay was elevated and the parish was devastated to lose her, all saying it will never be the same again, they won't be so lucky twice.

I am amazed you can just sweep away the role a woman is more than able to play in the nurturing of a group of people, it is a role totally suited to womens talents.

I certainly never noticed any of the ones I met were 'raving feminists' - they just seemed to be exceptionally thoughtful, caring, loving, attentive people. Though they do not have the capacity to alter my thinking, they would have been more likely to than the RC Church and its dogma, lack of condemnation of priests abusing children, that did much to resolve my thoughts that there is not, could not possibly be, a god who sanctioned all of that.

So what if they WERE married - still doesn`t make their wives apostles, does it. And no, some things shouldn`t change. There is far too much change for change`s sake, and in many cases, not for the better. "Thou shalt not kill" covers the abortion issue. I don`t know why I feel so strongly, being an atheist, anyway! LOL! As for Porphyry - I can`t be bothered to read his views - I know what mine are, so sod him!

Pat P

OK - I have no time for feminists full stop. I know plenty of male priests/vicars etc. who are loving, caring, find out all they can to conduct funerals properly, don`t abuse children - etc., etc. Apart from the child abuse (which goes on in many other walks of life beside priests) I would prefer the RC dogma, and rigidity of laws than the pinko watered down versions that resulted from people like Henry VIII, Martin Luther etc. not wanting to "stick to the rules". My atheism is just that I can`t believe in "Fairy stories", much as I`d like to. If I was not an atheist, I would certainly join the Catholic Church.

Pat P

So by your idea it is not possible for a woman to be all those things? By extension she pales by comparison, is in fact, a nothing, not deserving of any role, other than a subservient one.

Funny how pre-Christian religions were mainly women priestesses etc. They must have known more then than now.

Some might argue for Mary Magdalene. (NOT talking about the "Da Vinci Code".)

"Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the Gospels as being among the women of Galilee who followed Jesus and His disciples. She was present at His Crucifixion and Burial, and went to the tomb on Easter Sunday to anoint His body. She was the first to see the Risen Lord, and to announce His Resurrection to the apostles. Accordingly, she is referred to in early Christian writings as "the apostle to the apostles."

There is evidence that women did teach and lead in the early church (1st and 2nd centuries) and that Jesus looked beyond gender and approved of women teaching. The jealousies of some of the males Apostles (esp. Peter) and their followers stomped out this practice.

Henry's break with the Church was more politics than religion (and MUCH more than just wanting a divorce). He remained a firm Catholic and had mass through to the end of his life.

One of Henry's reasons for divorcing his wife was another church rule about not marrying someone too close to you - in this case he was married to his late brother's (Arthur's) wife (Catherine of Aragon).

While his reasoning may or may not be bogus he perceived that part of the reason he did not have a son with his 1st wife was because God was upset with him for marrying her - as the Bible has a statement against it. Henry did not water down Catholicism, in fact he wrote a book attacking those, and the views of those, who wished to change it.

Many aspects of the Catholic religion (and Russian, and Greek, etc.) are based in some VERY pagan practices (the cross, the trinity, the mass, the alter, the icons, etc.) During the Empire years the Romans were very good at assimilating other countries because of their tried and true method of absorbing the beliefs and practices of the groups they conquers. The Roman Catholic Church followed these same practices by taking on Saint worship, building churches on ancient "holy" lands, etc.

Tara

Whose dad was a Catholic and whose mom was a Methodist... ...who married a Lutheran, than a Methodist. ...who is sister to woman who was Episcopalian turned Mormon, a sister who was a Catholic turned Russian Orthodox, and a brother who is some new age thing whose name she can't remember. ...who is an Atheist herself but loves attending a Russian Orthodox Church to see the art, to hear the chanting, to hear the music, and to hear Russian and Latin during the mass...

Of course she can - but she`s not the ONLY sex who can.

I don`t know about MAINLY women. If so, what difference does that make? Different religions, different rules (or ways).

LOL! I just KNEW I`d wind you up on this subject! ;-))

Pat P

The fact that women were not mentioned , doesn`t not verify the fact that there were no female apostles ,, it only indicates that men wrote the books ,,, mirjam

Aaah! But Rome argues women cannot perform those duties, so that does make them sexist, right ? I haven't seen women ministers suggesting there should not be male ministers ???

No but I will always say something, the more so when I think one woman is putting down other women. You can keep your male orientated church, good luck with it. It is more superstitious than any other.

Also Mrs PP , if you consider the early Christians as a kind of reform movement or revolutionary ,,than women there had the same role women always have in New ideaological movements .....`be equal, but cook wash, and habve the kids ` while the men only do the ideaological things !!!!!and than the women are left behind ,,,,, mirjam