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 cant believe im responding to a royal board but here i am...
1 there is no god
2 the (Anglican & associated frachises) church is an institution that exists to serve the monarchy (other churches exist to serve their governors so not saying others are better) and was started by someone who wanted to justify their divorce.
3 monarchies exist because one person grabs the power and distribute it to their family & favourites for as long as they can hang on to power
So: of course "the rule" you refer to (which is just tradition) about divorced monarchs is going to be broken to suit the person who has stolen & hoarded the most power.
They'll balance the constitutional risks and rewards and act according to their will.
All this to say "it's good to be the king"; he doesn't care about you why would you care about him?

OP you are getting similar replies on this thread to previous ones you have posted. People think your connection between the monarchy and covid is tin foil hat wearing nonsense and nobody thinks it is at all relevant or notable that Charles, or Queen Elizabeth are examples of what it means to be defender of the faith.

I can guarantee that nobody is going to come on this thread to agree with your opinions. And yet I guess you will probably carry on posting your very odd musings. Why not actually engage and have a good think about what people are saying to you? Have you not wondered why everybody thinks your opinions are strange? Why post on a public forum if you are not prepared to listen and to people’s responses?

Having read your other threads, your illogical obsession with crowns and your feeling of urgency and unique responsibility to point out (and being the only person to spot) that the dire consequence of Charles' behaviour is Covid, it sounds less like a crisis of faith and more like psychosis or a mental breakdown.

Anne Boleyn got crowned Queen Consort despite the church knowing full well Henry had been shagging her before his divorce/annulment whatever. In fact Henry renounced the Pope and created the modern Christian church just so he could marry Anne. So…

The Church of England was literally set up to enable an adulterer to marry his mistress!

So not to worry OP this is all very traditional.

If you’re having a crisis of faith I’d suggest a chat with your vicar.

I bet Charles II had committed adultery with someone else's wife before he was crowned. And many of the Georges, too. We seem to have survived.

I responded with this on one of your other thread OP so apologies for the duplication

Jesus died for us to forgive our sins. which means if we sin and truly repent then we will be forgiven. Therefore if Charles has truly repented, and he says he is a man of deep faith so it's possible he has, then God will have forgiven him so who are humans to stand in judgement?

(I will caveat this by saying I am agnostic it was just easier to write it in this format, and this is just my undeestanding)

The Church of England was literally set up to enable an adulterer to marry his mistress!

And then got all snippy in the following years about divorced people being married in church.

I don't know anyone who actually gives a shit about the adultery between Charles and Camilla. Most think that the disastrous marriage between Charles and Diana should never have been forced in the first place. Camilla is the person he should have been allowed to marry in the first place.

You're right about one thing. The God behind the ten commandments doesn't exist. The Bible was written by men. By a series of human beings.

Charles and Camilla are human beings, however flawed. Just like the rest of us. Diana was too although there are still some around who seem to consider her some sort of a saint.

Reader1303 · Today 12:33
Is this the same Church of England that was founded by a king because he wanted to ditch his first wife to marry his mistress? Who he then beheaded, etc etc?

Not so. He waited for years for the Pope to give him an annulment. The Pope didn't dare because Rome was being threatened by Queen Katharine's nephew.
Eventually Henry got tired of waiting and decided that he (Henry) would be head of the Church in England. And granted himself an annulment. He considered himself a "good catholic" for the rest of his life.

An earlier Henry tried a similar thing with Becket - but with much less success

OK, I think you have having issues with the Christian faith because you don’t understand it.
Also, the CofE was created to facilitate divorce of a King.
“I can see why Prince Harry is talking about his mother so much. It’s like she has approached him like the ghost of Hamlet’s father.”
It sounds like this is parody?

You're a poor Christian OP.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I suggest you talk to your spiritual advisor and go back to basics. 🙄

I think the virus was started by an antelope.

Twice divorced murdering king. Don't forget those other commandments!

Technically, he is a widower. His ex-wife is dead.

So was Henry VIII when he married Jane Seymour...

Maybe Charles can do a king Henry and get rid of the church?

How can Charles and Camilla view their adultery as a mistake if it was the means to achieve what they desired?

The mistake was Charles marrying Diana Spencer. Not so sure about Camilla marrying Andrew, was he Plan B, or did she love him? I don't know.

Whatever views there are on adultery, the Church's opinion, the Royal Family I do believe that as a couple they are right for one another.

To be honest, nobody cares. Look marriages break down. So what, he's just like us, fallible

OP, lots of people have written thoughtful and detailed responses. What do you think about them? Or did you just want to off load your odd opinions and you don’t really notice or care what other people think?

Andrew P-B was Camilla's plan A - that's why she married him and not Charles. There's a narrative which I think emanates from 'The Crown' that she and Charles wanted to marry (in the late 1960s) and were prevented by 'the men in grey suits' - that is not correct. Camilla was in love with AP-B. At the time he was the 'alpha male' of her social circle, the one everyone fancied.

At the time of C&D's marriage, Camilla was busy bringing her young children.

It may well be true that, at some level, Charles and Camilla remained 'in love' (whatever that means ) all along, but their active affair was not rekindled until both their respective marriages had broken down.

You do realise how the CofE was founded, don't you?

I bet it was dozens. He was famous for not keeping it in his breeches.