Adultery, the Church of England and the Coronation of Charles & Camilla

[Inspectamus]

Discussed as a thread on Gransnet, but not on Mumsnet. What does Mumsnet think?

"The Church of England has never crowned a divorced man as King, let alone one who has publicly confessed to adultery – with the relevant woman expecting to be crowned Queen Consort," Holden writes.

I think that in these corona-virus and coronation times the Church of England should not be taking liberties with God’s Ten Commandments. But they’re doing it anyway, without explaining to the people and the world how they’re reconciling the conflict in what they preach and their new King & Queen’s actions.

How can Charles and Camilla view their adultery as a mistake if it was the means to achieve what they desired?
This, in my view, sets a bad example as Supreme Governors of the Church of England’s Christian faith and as defenders of the faith.

I’m having a crisis of faith, as it happens. For me, Charles and Camilla’s religious coronation will be evidence that the God behind the Ten Commandments cannot exist.

Isn't the idea, which seems prevalent lately, that the monarchy should be morally superior to the general population, a little odd? Why do we need this, we are not children who need an example to "look up to". And if anyone feels they do, why does it have to be the king?

Inspectamus · 26/01/2023 10:59
I’m having a crisis of faith, as it happens. For me, Charles and Camilla’s religious coronation will be evidence that the God behind the Ten Commandments cannot exist.

Your God cannot be very strong if the marriage of a widower and a divorcee, who later undergo another religious ceremony together, can kill him off entirely.

"Some famous people have grievously sinned - so God doesn't exist"

@BadgerB

It isn't so difficult to understand .
Charles is being anointed as head of the Church of England .
He couldn't himself be married in said church as he was a self confessed adulterer and divorced .

A bit of a mess.
For sincerely religious people I can see the problem .

I'm not religious myself but having Chuck and Camilla on the thrones and Chuck anointed seems a mockery

Re the Charles being head of the COE and his morality , I am much more disturbed that Charles and the 'royals ' protect and support sex the offenders and alleged pedophiles in their family

THAT is an utter disgrace and how anyone can turn a blind eye to it all and call themselves a royalist is beyond me

Or maybe most people don't really care.

Considering the level of church attendance in the UK, this would be my guess.

@SenecaFallsRedux
Yes - more reason for the disestablishment of the COE . Why should bishops sit in the House of Lords by right and unelected - just because they are COE bishops

Perhaps the axe will fall as part of the reforms of the House of Lords

Novella4 · Today 13:39
@BadgerB
It isn't so difficult to understand .
Charles is being anointed as head of the Church of England .
He couldn't himself be married in said church as he was a self confessed adulterer and divorced .
A bit of a mess.
For sincerely religious people I can see the problem .
I'm not religious myself but having Chuck and Camilla on the thrones and Chuck seems a mockery.

I, on the other hand, could be described as a "sincerely religious person" and don't see any problem. We don't know the depth of Charles's repentance, nor should we. But even if there's none, if he is totally indifferent, how does this disprove the existence of God? Which is what my post of 06.16 yesterday was about.

Novella4 · Today 13:39
He couldn't himself be married in said church as he was a self confessed adulterer and divorced .

He could have been married in church. He was a widower at that time. Camilla, however, was a divorcee.

@BadgerB Charles wasn't a widower he was a divorcee. At the time of Diana's death they were already divorced so her dying made no difference to his status. I suggest you get your facts right before posting.

handholdin · Today 16:58
@BadgerB Charles wasn't a widower he was a divorcee. At the time of Diana's death they were already divorced so her dying made no difference to his status. I suggest you get your facts right before posting.

That's an interesting thought. Yes, he was divorced before he was widowed. But when he married Camilla he had no living (ex)wife. I don't know if that makes him free to marry in the eyes of the church. I think it might.

Divorce itself is not a sin; marrying again when you have a living partner is.
And he hadn't - tho' of course Camilla had.

Christianity, well the sort I know, teaches forgiveness and love. Maybe show a bit.

I'm religious and it isn't a problem to me. Jesus told us, "Judge not lest you be judged." Good advice.

Odd how those who are quick to say they are "not religious" are most keen to protect what they imagine are the most severe rules of the church.

The actual Christians are less inclined to "cast first stone" and are more forgiving.

(Well, except for the O.P. who seems to think Charles being anointed will negate the very existence of God.)

Even churches that do not recognise divorce DO recognise that the death of the spouse (not ex, in their eyes) frees up the other person to marry again.

Why wouldn't they? It's the divorce of a spouse they don't recognise, so in their eyes didn't happen. No-one tries to deny that death ends a marriage - 'til death do us part' and all that - the original vows are quite clear that the death of one party ends the marriage.

Personally, as a member of the C of E, I don't have a problem with Charles becoming the (symbolic) Head of the Church. We're all sinners, so whoever has the role will be a sinner.

That's why we confess our sins regularly (general confession, not one-to-one with a priest) and ask God for forgiveness. What is between God and Charles in the matter of his marriage to Diana is nothing to do with me. My focus is trying to get my own life right as much as possible.

So why wasnt Charles' wedding in church and why didn't the queen attend ( I know she went to the blessing but that has no status) ?

If that was directed at me you are barking up the wrong tree

I'm not interested in protecting church rules - I am interested in highlighting 'royal' hypocrisy

Because Camilla had (still has) a living spouse - not Charles. So he could marry again in church at that point, but she couldn't.

Novella4 · Today 12:46
If that was directed at me you are barking up the wrong tree
I'm not interested in protecting church rules - I am interested in highlighting 'royal' hypocrisy

No, it wasn't directed at you particularly.
What part of Charles behaviour do you consider hypocritical? How do you claim to know the state of his soul? And if he and the Church have gone into everything, and decided that his coronation is valid/permissible, why do you (and not only you) feel you know better? Is no dubious, possibly immoral, act ever to be forgiven? Are he and Camilla heading for Hell?

Exactly. Whoever is without sin can cast the first stone.

Presumably @Novella4 is the first human being ever to exist without sinning 😂

Actually, the Church of England has crowned a divorced man as king. George I divorced his wife Sophia Dorothea in 1694, before succeeding to the throne in 1714.

Looking forward to @Novella4 's explanation of the hypocrisy of a widower remarrying and becoming head of the CofE?

Harry married Meghan in the CoE.

AliceOlive · Yesterday 23:48
Harry married Meghan in the CoE.

So he did - and she a divorcee! Has he put himself out of the line of succession?
Is he too excommunicated?

No, and I’d argue with anyone that suggested he should be.

The hypocrisy on these threads is truly aggravating.

AliceOlive · Yesterday 23:48
Harry married Meghan in the CoE.

BadgerB · Today 05:47
So he did - and she a divorcee! Has he put himself out of the line of succession?
Is he too excommunicated?

AliceOlive · Today 09:21
No, and I’d argue with anyone that suggested he should be.
The hypocrisy on these threads is truly aggravating.

Erm... I was joking.... But tell me, please, what you see as hypocrisy