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.

@BadgerB
Anthony Holden was a v well known journalist and writer

He wrote bios of Charles too.
He became a republican

Plot twist - Charles should announce he is becoming a Catholic take communion as such and swear fealty to the Pope and bring the British Crown back into the fold. Like Boris before him who got married to Carrie Antoinette in Westminster Cathedral the C of E marriage is not valid so he is free to be either regarded as single and free Camilla (rumoured) or re-marry in the 'True Faith'. He could also ban the anti-papist bonfire night and please the fire brigade,pets and wildlife and save the planet. Let Justin Welby sort all that mess out.

Are you the poster who thinks that god sent corona virus because the queen wasn't Christian enough? You are obsessed.

Charles'and Camilla's adultery and divorces is a live issue re the con-a-nation for those interested in the role of COE as a minority state religion
This is probably the start of separating the Windsors from automatically being supreme head of the church

I don't entirely understand the Church of England's rules on divorce.

30 years ago I was not allowed to marry my husband in church because he had been divorced. Charles and Camilla did not marry in church, I assume for the same reason.

Presumably things have moved on since then, given that Prince Harry was allowed to marry a divorced woman in church.

And of course the Catholic Church has rather odd rules on this too, given that it allowed Boris Johnson to marry Carrie in church despite the fact that he had been married twice before and had numerous mistresses!

You miss the point being made. Breaking your marriage vows made in front of God is wrong. He is defender of the faith but married his mistress in church. He is morally corrupt. If this was still a Christian country there would be outrage.

In your dreams.

Novella4 · Today 10:40
Yes all the talk of 'we are all sinners' is just distraction from the sheer hypocrisy of the unnecessary con-a-nation .

No, it's an uncomfortable true. If you accept any religion, that is. If you are an atheist you can happily sin away. N.B. I'm NOT suggesting that atheists are more wicked,

I think this decision should be referred to the head of the Church, which is....checks notes....King Charles III.

YABU. The Church of England was set up to facilitate a king's divorces, it's a political structure much more than it is to do with faith.

He is defender of the faith but married his mistress in church. He is morally corrupt.

Honestly, in the list of ways Charles is corrupt I don't think his adultery ranks particularly high.

He didn’t marry her in church anyway. They were married in Windsor registry office.

OutForBreakfast · Today 11:49
He is defender of the faith but married his mistress in church. He is morally corrupt.

No, they married in Winsor Registry Office. Followed by a blessing in St Georges Chapel.

And of course the Catholic Church has rather odd rules on this too, given that it allowed Boris Johnson to marry Carrie in church despite the fact that he had been married twice before and had numerous mistresses!

The Catholic Church doesn't audit whether someone is a good person before agreeing to conduct a marriage. Their rules are consistent- you only get one Catholic marriage and it's considered permanent. Johnson had been legally married twice before but that doesn't count (in terms of Catholic rules).

The Queen did not attend their marriage because of her faith and position as Monarch and defender of the faith.

As I understand it, she did not attend because it was a civil ceremony. She did attend the church blessing. And later stated that she wanted Camilla to be queen consort.

She also attended Harry's church wedding to a divorcee.

Also these distinctions between divorce and annulment people are drawing in Henry VIII's cases are rather specious from a moral standpoint, if valid from a strictly legal one. Divorce as we know it today was not possible in Henry's time. It's true that royals were often given annulments for practical reasons, but his basis was itself questionable in the case of Katherine of Aragon, who maintained that her marriage to Arthur was not consummated. In addition, she and Henry had received a papal dispensation to marry.

And as for "admission to adultery," Charles is clearly not the first. One does not have to sit down for a press interview to admit actions. Edward VII was notoriously open about his mistresses. So was William IV among others.

I have to say one of the best thread titles I've seen has a sort of baroque condemnatory, end of times feel. More please !

@Fifthtimelucky

I think Boris was allowed to marry in the Catholic Church because his previous marriage (s?) werent in Catholic Churches so weren't recognised as marriages.
If he'd been married before in a Catholic Church he wouldn't have been allowed to remarry in a Catholic Church
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned he wasn't married before

Hmm William V - maybe as a hat tip to modernity he could be Will.I.Am Vee - funk it up a bit😂

@donquixotedelamancha

Sorry - I see you've already explained

My point exactly .
Why didn't the marry Camilla in church ?

@vera99
I know ! It has a history A level book feel

@BadgerB
"Neither Clement VII or Henry VIII was over-concerned about "religious purity""

I think Henry V111 considered himself a good catholic until the day he died! Could be wrong here it's a long time since I was at school

I know he wrote a 'defence of the 7 sacraments ' and - plot twist - was awarded ' defender of faith' title by the pope
Is this the very one Charles is also using ?

Is this the very one Charles is also using ?

Yes, it is. Henry chose to keep it after he broke with Rome.

Harry & Meghan married in St Georges Chapel. I wonder, does this count as something other than a "Parish Church" which makes the rules different?

The Boris thing is interesting. I think it's because he was baptized Catholic that the Church could consider his non-Catholic marriages invalid. If he had not been Catholic, his marriages outside the Catholic Church would have been an impediment. I have a good friend (non-Catholic) who years after divorcing his then non-Catholic wife received a petition to annul that marriage so that his ex-wife, now a converted Catholic, could marry in the Catholic Church.

Because the then Archbishop of Canterbury vetoed it. Obviously we have a slightly more enlightened one now, not enlightened enough to allow same sex couples to marry in church though.

No, it's rather that the CofE has changed it's stance on remarriage of divorced persons. There are divorced and remarried priests in the CofE now and at least one bishop.