Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

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

369 replies

Inspectamus · 26/01/2023 10:59

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Whiskyinajar · 26/01/2023 18:24

Hey OP, you've heard of Henry VIII right?

Borris · 26/01/2023 18:24

A major foundation stone of the Christian faith is forgiveness of sins. Jesus on the cross told the murderer hanging next to him who recognised him as God that he would have a place in heaven

ArcaneWireless · 26/01/2023 18:30

@JaneJeffer

Adultery, the Church of England and the Coronation of Charles & Camilla
JaneJeffer · 26/01/2023 18:32

Arcane** that gave me a fright 🤣

ArcaneWireless · 26/01/2023 18:37

Sorry for sneaking up on you Jane but It’s alright darlin’

I look more like…

Adultery, the Church of England and the Coronation of Charles & Camilla
ArcaneWireless · 26/01/2023 18:38

Just NOT with the kissie mouth. 🤔😉

JaneJeffer · 26/01/2023 18:39

Have you given any thought to retinol @ArcaneWireless <head tilt>?

stargirl1701 · 26/01/2023 18:41

The Church of England was established in order for Henry to commit adultery. In the Catholic Church, he remained married to Catherine surely.

ArcaneWireless · 26/01/2023 18:43

I’d have to steep myself in it for 6 months jane - work might get pissy.

As for the thread? I believe it has been discussed. A few times. Not just coronation and corona virus times either.

Andsoforth · 26/01/2023 18:53

Royalty have pretty much been defined by their exception from sexual morality since time immemorial. There’s evidence now of incest in Stone Age royal castes, the Egyptians were at it, and the European royal families are like a plate of spaghetti. Even the Hapsburg chin didn’t put them off until Victoria managed to topple a couple dynasties with haemophilia.

Droit de Seigneur and king’s mistresses are only minor concessions in the greater scheme of things.

The problem these days is that we’re all privy to court life without gleaning the advantages that came from being close and compromised . But if you’re going to have a royal family you may as well have a properly scandalous one and just concentrate on tugging your forelock in an appropriate manner.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 26/01/2023 19:03

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**

Shouldn't think most people care one way or another. I don't hear any shouting for the CoE to explain itself to the 'people and the world' either. Are you the poster who reckoned corona was a punishment for the queen not intervening in the persecution of Christians overseas?

OutForBreakfast · 27/01/2023 02:14

OP post this around the religion board. I do not agree with everything you have said, but I agree Charles being King and Camilla being Queen is openly mocking Christianity. The Queen did not attend their marriage because of her faith and position as Monarch and defender of the faith.
But most people here are simply mocking you even though what is happening is clearly not right. I think the Monarchy should now be officially separate from the Church of England.

RoseHansBolo · 27/01/2023 06:26

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

RoseHansBolo · 27/01/2023 06:27

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

PurBal · 27/01/2023 06:32

I’d try to focus on new covenant theology: Christ’s love.

WestBridgewater · 27/01/2023 06:41

Inspectamus · 26/01/2023 11:39

But I wonder if Diana would be with us still if she was not the victim of her husband’s adultery with Camilla? Had Charles devoted his efforts to his marriage, rather than the other woman, then maybe his marriage and Diana stood a chance to survive?

Camilla is not in the clear though. Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive.

Show quote history

Diana was hardly a saint if I remember correctly.

vera99 · 27/01/2023 07:01

Burn the witches. Crown the Kings.

BubziOwl · 27/01/2023 07:14

BadgerB · 26/01/2023 15:32

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

I was reading through this thread itching to be annoying about this and was waiting to see if someone said it first... and they did! Thank you!

As far as I understood, Henry VIII did not ever get divorced, he annulled his marriages. So in the view of the newly created CofE, he was never truly married too Katherine of Aragon at all. Ditto Anne of Cleves. He actually also annulled his marriages to Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard for good measure as well as lopping their heads off.

Someone correct me and wipe the smug look off my face if I'm wrong!

LavenderHillMob · 27/01/2023 08:20

Wasn't Anne Boleyn heavily pregnant when she was crowned as Henry's second wife?

Obviously Hal didn't go on Television to confess to adulatory, but the clues were there.

Setting up your very own church because you didn't like the Catholic Church's rules and trying to justify them in the name of religious purity is just a tiny bit hypocritical, no?

BadgerB · 27/01/2023 08:30

Inspectamus · Yesterday 10:59
"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.

"He (or she) who is without sin amongst you, let him cast first stone".
I don't know who Holden is, but presumably he is sinless?

ReamsOfCheese · 27/01/2023 08:34

I think it was bison.

BadgerB · 27/01/2023 08:43

LavenderHillMob · Today 08:20
Setting up your very own church because you didn't like the Catholic Church's rules and trying to justify them in the name of religious purity is just a tiny bit hypocritical, no?

A bit disingenuous, perhaps? The pope would certainly have given Henry his annulment if he hadn't been at the mercy of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor & Katherine's nephew.
Let's not kid ourselves - kings, popes, the mighty generally did as they pleased and justified it to themselves and their underlings, who (mostly) didn't dare protest.
Neither Clement VII or Henry VIII was over-concerned about "religious purity"

LavenderHillMob · 27/01/2023 08:49

OK only pious when it concerned other people's morals. Grin

vera99 · 27/01/2023 09:07

BadgerB · 27/01/2023 08:30

Inspectamus · Yesterday 10:59
"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.

"He (or she) who is without sin amongst you, let him cast first stone".
I don't know who Holden is, but presumably he is sinless?

The Royal Family probably look at their expensive hand made shoes if the priest ever preaches this part of the gospel .......

The Rich Young Man
…23Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”…

Novella4 · 27/01/2023 10:40

@EarthPunchingBack

Yes all the talk of 'we are all sinners' is just distraction from the sheer hypocrisy of the unnecessary con-a-nation .

It's pure PR for Charles and reinforcing COE ( now a minority religion) as 'state ' religion.

The fact that Charlesadmitted adultery and is now being crowned along with his co adulterer was an issue raised by archbishop Runcie years ago - though Runcie didn't foresee Camilla being crowned too!
Runcie thought they'd have to change the wording of the vows .

Camilla didn't want to marry Charles - the whole star crossed lovers was a PR wheeze . Charles could have married her if he'd wanted to enough . He was indecisive . She wanted Parker Bowles . And there were several women in the picture re Charles not just Camilla
Time for a proper look at the whole feudal mess of Mr Windsor as head of COE . As for William .... Jesus.

Swipe left for the next trending thread