The Princess of Wales was pretty messed up too. A
high power, high pressure marriage of convenience/love of two wounded
children. We all need saving - every single day of our lives.
True, but she was manipulated and duped
into thinking it was a love match at least for a short while.
While we're at it, I think the rest of the family
was pretty messed up too.
I agree and they have been for
generations, although Queen Victoria is said to have taken her faith
seriously.
But there is so much good and so much glory in
that tiny nation. Some of the greatest evangelists, missionaries and
theologians came from there. Some of the greatest social reformers came from
there. Our modern ideas which includes no slavery, protection of workers,
education for all came from there. Remarkable. It has to be God.
They had their
day in the sun, along with Scotland each nation has a 'day of visition'
and I don't doubt that God still has
a remnant in those
countries in spite of how pagan they have become.
I wonder if the Royal family is aware of
spiritual warfare? They are defender of the faith and the head of the nation.
Surely they must come in for more than the average person's share of spiritual
lies and attacks. I hope English Christians pray for them daily.
Are you kidding? Philip and much of
the British aristocracy are Freemasons; Charles has resisted so far, possibly
because of the terrible relationship he has with his father but he has not
escaped. A close adviser by the name of VanDerPost introduced him to
pursuit of the occult many years ago and he read these books on his honeymoon
when he married Diana. Later he went to Africa to investigate
native religions. Both Diana and Fergie were known to frequent psychics
and astrologers. Charles disdains
Christianity and has stated in the past that when he ascends the throne he
would like to be called "Defender of the
Faiths" - so there you go. The future King of England is a true
universalist. judyt
LOL Judy! I wonder what God said to Isaac and
Rebekah the morning after.
What would be wrong with Isaac
& Rebekah's union, they had the blessing of both families and she
went willingly.
For the longest time the State did not govern
or legislate marriage. They had to do that when our societies got more
complicated. I haven't done any research in this area but when did State
sanctioned marriages happen? Was it because English law allows only
legitimate sons to inherit with the first born one getting the main title
plus the lands that went with the title?
They probably started it to get some
kind of tax, whenever the State gets involved it has to do with power or
money. However we know that marriage is ordained by God and that the
marriage agreement is the closest idea we have in our generation to
that of covenant. Under Levitical law if a man lay with a
maiden he had married her.
Someone should write a book about how
primogeniture has shaped society. King Richard II became king by declaring
his brother's two sons illegitimate because it was discovered
that King Edward V was betrothed(!) to another before
his marriage. Apparently in those days, betrothed people could have
church approved sex and it was the equivalent of marriage without the
ceremony.
British Kings were for the most part
totally immoral and pretty much gave in to their carnality and lust and
did what they wanted to They were
'defenders of the faith' in name only and took any female that appealed to
them.
I can see why that tradition had to
change. I can imagine some cousin of Princes Will and Harry saying, "your
dad was betrothed to _____ before he married your mom so you guys are
illegitimate and I'm the heir apparent." and they replying, "oh yeah and
your grandfather......"
Love, Caroline
No kidding; there is already
speculation about Harry's paternity and Charles' behavior has been
disgraceful. Apparently some uncles of his messed him up big time. One
encouraged him to research the occult and another told him to sow
wild oats and play the field. This along with his loveless childhood produced an emotional wreck of a
man who had nothing to give his bride in 1981 but his infidelity.
How tragic and what a horrible example to his sons.
How does God determine what
is fornication and what is not? I would think this would
be
the important part because
fornicators DO NOT inherit his Kingdom. Adulterers don't
either. judyt
I don't know what I think about
living together without a legal ceremony. I suppose that
if the couple has made a conscious commitment to one another
they are "married." I mean, the state does not tell them
to separate. It seems to me that there is a
difference between living together and shaken up.
I like what Caroline wrote, below.
Jd
In a message dated 4/11/2005 5:36:00 AM
Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Pros for legal marriage
1) legal
protection and rights including survivor benefits, inheritance,
insurance etc.
2) tax breaks
3) teens can't
contract serial marriages/divorces behind their parents backs. Some
are probably doing it anyway but they know such marriages are not
accepted.
When teens fall in
love they:
- honestly and wholeheartedly believe
it'll last forever
- honestly and wholeheartedly believe
it's God's will
- will believe that stats that say teen
love and teen marriage is temporary does not apply to
them
If the above three are
not issues, then sure, no reason to get marriage sanctioned by
State. But then again, we have to remember that everyone going to
the altar never thinks they'll need State protection from the person
they are swearing to love forever and ever.
Love,
Caroline
