the church of england has never crpwned a divorced King

Isn't this all rather a waste of time. He's already King which also makes him Head of the CofE. The coronation is just flummery and tourism and the Tories want it to divert us from the real issues - cost of living, NHS underfunding, climate change, Brexit mess ups, tax avoidance, etc.

I think the whole premise of a split rests on the fact that most of the branches of the Cof E that are more traditionalist are found in other countries and particularly in Africa. The issue of homosexuality threatened to split the Anglican church some time ago. The issue of accepting Charles as head could cause division again.

George 1st was divorced. He married Sophie Dorothea of Celle in 1682. 1694 accusing her infidelity he divorced her and imprisoned her for the rest of her life. George was crowned in 1714. The Anglican church was founded on adultery, divorce,remarriage and legitimacy . Think that kind of sorts it out!

Callistemon 'I don't see why the C of E should be any more puzzling than many other religions.'

Indeed, you are right in so many ways. And yet- on the one hand there is the Catholic Church, and on the other, many Protestant denominations, each with ver specific traits.

In the middle, neither one, nor the other, is the CofE Church. Very unique in so many ways.

What makes it currently of such strong interest, is not the religion itself. But the fact the Crown, the country, the political, judicial, educational, etc- systems, are so strongly and officially linked still today.

Even though, as Grantanow says, it is increasingly marginal to most people's concerns.

It is time for it to become, like other religions, a private matter, and relinquish its strong influence on all the above.

Does any of this really matter nowadays? The days of Margaret and Townshend are long gone. And the CofE is increasingly marginal to most people's concerns.

puzzled - are they, or are they interested/fascinated as we might be by religious practices/buildings in different countries we may visit?

I don't see why the C of E should be any more puzzling than many other religions.

However, I'm still annoyed that we had pay £15 to go into Canterbury Cathedral (fair enough, helps towards the upkeep) but then got thrown out, along with tourists from various countries, after a short time because they were going to hold a service in part of it.
We were all very quiet and well-behaved, too!

MawtheMerrier

^I think you're right, Allsorts^
Despite the fact that Charles is 74, he seems to be forward-thinking regarding religion, the environment and social problems etc etc
Ooh shaky ground!
I’m 74 - no further comment!

Oops, sorry!

blush

Most people are puzzled about aspects of others religions, aren’t they

I don’t get what the point is of saying tourists are puzzled. Of course they are.

Callistemon21

^Laugh, mock, deride, filly your boots- it won't change facts^

Do you mean the foreign tourists who are laughing at the C of E?
Which facts?
🤔

Did you read my previous post?

No, it is not the tourists who laugh at the CofE- puzzled they are, yes, but laughing not.

The laughing was done, and done again repeatedly, by one poster- as explained in my last post.

Although the theological discussion is interesting, I can't help feel that there are far more important things to worry about than whether a few CofE purists are in a flap about whether or not to crown a divorced man. Semantics for pedants.

I think you're right, Allsorts
Despite the fact that Charles is 74, he seems to be forward-thinking regarding religion, the environment and social problems etc etc
Ooh shaky ground!
I’m 74 - no further comment!

This is going to be a very different Reign from that of the late Queen, that was of that era, can never be repeated

I think you're right, Allsorts
Despite the fact that Charles is 74, he seems to be forward-thinking regarding religion, the environment and social problems, which must be difficult for him, having been brought up steeped in the traditions of centuries.

Thanks Mollygo 🙂

We could have the same views as others but, because of the way they express them, we may disregard them if they use certain language or tend to tell us that the whole world is laughing at us.

It's offputting and detracts from the discussion.

Of course it will be valid, do you not think they have that covered. We don’t chop heads off any more to dispose of a Queen. The Church has had to move with the times. I didn’t like what Charles or Camilla did to Diana, yet as time has moved on it’s obvious she is the partner he needs. Charles has taken on the role of King very well and is popular. Despite all the ingratitude and bad behaviour of H he has only shown him compassion, it’s known he would welcome him back. Remarkable really.
This country gets a lot of revenue and interest from other countries because of our Royal Family, glad it’s being scaled down, too many lazy hangers on. Also pleased how Will and Kate are a great support to C and are very popular. This is going to be a very different Reign from that of the late Queen, that was of that era, can never be repeated.

Callistemon21

I'm wondering which way to take that
😂

Take it as a positive-that’s how it was meant.
Of course we can all post information and opinions on the matter, coloured by our own views and experiences, but it will happen, the Irish woman will keep on being as she is (thank you for saving me the need to read her post) and the world will keep on turning.

Callistemon21

As soon as I got to the word cretin used as a description by the Irish woman (lady is the wrong word to describe her) then I stopped reading.

I thought so at first but how else can you make your very good case very good points made.
You should read it.

Wish for divorce

It's more progressive than other religions.

And the fact that it was founded because of the wish divorce (and adultery) means the stance of so-called traditionalists is hypocritical.

Callistemon21

Interesting, Glorianny

However, there is a difference between being a Governor, the titular Head, and being an ordained priest.

Of course there is. But the question is one of acceptance. The Cof E has only just held together through the appointment of women to ministry, the acceptance of homosexuality and marriage after divorce. Will those who have consistently opposed new reforms accept Charles, given his history? Even the progressives accepted adulterers remarrying in the church is wrong. Traditionalists are more likely to refuse to accept him and could split from the church.

[Callistemon21] love your school day comment.. and Broad Church..very apt and wise

As soon as I got to the word cretin used as a description by the Irish woman (lady is the wrong word to describe her) then I stopped reading.

Video
Charles unfit to rule. Here’s why Britain should ditch King Charles.

This Irish lady gave her view after video. Good points made

As an Irish woman listening to this, all I can think is how blinking fortunate we are not to have the stranglehold of corruption and oppression that is the British Establishment to contend with like Britons have decided to do. Thankfully, three momentous things happened as soon as Ireland won independence from these cretins, three things that ensured they and their ilk were gone forever: (1) A body called the Land Commission was established which oversaw the mandatory purchase of all leased lands from the British aristocracy, with full ownership automatically transferred to all occupying tenants. The notion of "Leaseholds" was abolished and replaced by Freehold-only ownership of property (ie, 100% outright ownership). These measures wiped out the landed gentry in one fell swoop. (2) Local people throughout the country burnt down over 600 (yes, six hundred!) aristocratic houses owned by the Establishment classes, forcing the vast majority to flee to the UK for sanctuary, never to return. (3) The most complete form of PR (Proportional Representation) was immediately adopted as the country's electoral system - one hundred years ago in 1922. This form of PR is known as the Single Transferrable Vote (STV). After 50 years of PR, a referendum was held in 1975 to retain/reject PR and the people chose to retain it. Watching how British society has evolved to what it is today (divided, profoundly unfair, under-performing, etc), I am constantly reminded how grateful I am for our heroes who were executed in 1916 (Easter Rising) and who posthumously achieved our independence. They were not professional soldiers. They were artists, writers, teachers and poets. In other words they were us, the people. Why are Britain's people so passive and at ease with their country's overt oppression and deprivation? Why is there not even one aspirational group planning for its ending? Why the deafening silence from the artists and writers, the teachers and the poets.

Interesting, Glorianny

However, there is a difference between being a Governor, the titular Head, and being an ordained priest.

In the town where I grew up the Episcopalian Church was always known as the English Kirk.

Is she a churchgoer? Aye, she goes to the English Kirk.

Mainly because of all the bobbing up and down that was expected, I think.