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.

I read the hypocrisy comment as aimed at Novella, who has posted in support of Harry on other threads

Correct.

Sorry. My Bad - as the kids say...

So?

My enemy's enemy is my friend

My enemy's enemy is my friend

It's funny - I've often thought some people must think that on here.
You some really badly put arguments - on whatever "side" if it's seen as sides - and just know another poster, who is possibly more astute, will be cringing at the crassness.
But because they're "team H&M" or "team K&W" or whatever, feel they must agree.

This isn't specifically about you Novella, just that that quote has occurred to me so often reading these threads.

Not sure who your “enemy enemy” is in this case.

But when you complain about things just because you don’t like the person doing it, it’s impossible to take it seriously.

Meghan is divorced and married in the church of England.

@LaMarschallin I think it’s the theme here of many.

How strange to go through life with 'enemies' - "a person who hates or opposes another person and tries to harm them or stop them from doing something".

Especially when those enemies are people you've never met.

It sounds a bit of a waste of energy to me, but each to their own I suppose...

@mixedrecycling

I assumed you knew ' my enemy's enemy is my friend ' is a quote as old as time .
No?

It is not meant literally as lan 'enemy'

It means use whatever you can to further your own argument / battle

A royalist the other day thought being called a 'fellow traveller' was some sort ot insult ....

Now call me an elitist . I've been called that before by a royalist 🤣

And without a hint of irony .
She had no idea

But really is that actually true for you?

Say for example I am trying to block a landfill site from being build in the middle of the housing estate I live on (not a scenario that's likely to happen but I was trying to think of something). My enemy in this case is the company trying to build it.

Now if there is a white supremacist who also lives on the same estate who is also trying to block it from happening we might be trying to achieve the same thing against the same company but they absolutely are not my friend

It's just a bizarre saying to live by to be honest as you could end up being 'friends with some people with diametrically opposing views to your own just because you have one thing in common. And whilst I think having friends with a range of views stops you from existing in a little bubble I certainly at least do have some limits to who I will be friends with.

It means use whatever you can to further your own argument / battle:

Right. Like, if you dislike someone, you make fun of their weight. It's an ugly game.

The rational people here need a name for the parties who are so strongly pro or anti H&M that they engage in this kind of behavior.

The rational people here need a name for the parties who are so strongly pro or anti H&M that they engage in this kind of behavior.

I know what you mean, but that would still be abused; people would post something mildly pro or anti and get called by the more extreme supporters' term.

It means use whatever you can to further your own argument / battle

I'm just not sure what the "battle" is.
Is it Republicans vs Royalists?
In which case, that's unlikely to be won or lost on the boards of MN.

Or is H&M vs K&W?
In which case, social media will have some influence on popularity, but it won't change how the royal family and its succession works.

Or is it just to make sure that Poster X never lets Poster Y (who has a different opinion) apparently score a point (or "gotcha" or whatever you want to call it) over them?

Actually, to answer my own question (having thought a bit harder) is that there are lots of different "battles" being fought all at the same time.

I think I'm off to dab some eau de cologne on my temples and lie on my fainting couch.
All this thinking can't be good for me

Loosen your corset @lamarschallin

No-one needs you coming over all unnecessary.

If you could just force a little brandy between my lips...

I do wonder if some of the posters who declare themselves to be republicans are actually just Sussex supporters using republicanism as a reason to attack the rest of the RF. Especially as Harry has said he continues to support the idea of monarchy. Some have let their masks slip a little when they have defended the Sussexes against criticism in circumstances that do not serve to undermine the monarchy iyswim. Just what I have observed across several threads and not aimed at any poster in particular 🤷‍♀️

Why this insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a Sussex supporter?

Shall I start calling anyone who disagrees with me a Charles and William supporter?

If that was addressed to me, that isn’t what I was saying at all. It was an observation on how some posters behave.

You know that happens frequently here. If you want to engage in that style of debate go for it. You'll be in good company on both sides.

🍷I couldn't find a brandy emoji @LaMarschallin would a glass of wine do instead?

Yes, the whole 'using anything/anyone to reach the goal' is a bit odd. Especially those of republican views supporting Harry, when a) he has said very clearly he believes in the monarchy and b) he seems to display the worst aspects of a privileged and entitled upbringing 😂

Although I suppose even Hitler and Stalin got friendly over their shared interest in obliterating Poland. At the risk of giving away the ending, that didn't last...

I think I said about 90 million threads ago that the frustrating thing is the absence of nuance. It is possible to think that people are behaving badly or unwisely but not to believe they are the essence of evil when they clearly are not. I think there plenty of Harry in particulars behaviour has been very questionable and exasperating but I still fundamentally wish him and Meghan well and find it sad things are at this pass. Don't think on the basis of recent posts I'm alone in all this, happily.

There does seem to be (IMO) a tendency for some avowed Republicans, who are entirely entitled to their views, to appear to support the Sussexes unquestioningly. Newsflash-Harry is no Republican. I've seen no evidence he would be happy to be officially known forever more as "ex-Prince", which some Russian aristocrats were titled after the Revolution by the new regime.

There does seem to be (IMO) a tendency for some avowed Republicans, who are entirely entitled to their views, to appear to support the Sussexes unquestioningly.

I think that when the Sussexes left some republicans were pleased because H&M were saying that the RF was toxic, impossible to live within etc.

Then, as details come out, it isn't so clear cut as RF=bad, H&M=persecuted innocents. But having taken a strong position, some people have felt the need to double down.

Some people don't cope well with nuance - and that goes for both 'sides'. I think most posters can cope with nuance, but those that can't find it threatening.