the church of england has never crpwned a divorced King

Anniebach

Charles did not marry Camilla in church as did Megan marry
Harry. Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a church blessing.

Camilla's first marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles was a Roman Catholic one and they have to be annulled by special dispensation which is why Charles did not marry her in church.
So if he Crowns her as his queen he is not married to a divorced woman but in the eyes of some Catholics a bigamist by Church law, though by Civil law she was divorced when she married Prince Charles.
A lot of legal work which I am sure theywill find a way round.

In 1994, Charles triggered controversy when he said he would be defender of faith rather than Defender of the Faith, in a desire to reflect Britain’s religious diversity. There were suggestions that the coronation oath might be altered.

Many of us at the time thought 'good, about time'- and hoped it would mean changes in the Lords too, and a deconnection for so many institutions with the one CofE Church.

You may be thinking of this FP, but I fear that your interpretation seems to be at odds with his actual words.

www.princeofwales.gov.uk/will-prince-wales-be-defender-faith-or-defender-faith

During the recording of ‘The Sunday Hour’, which aired on BBC Radio 2 in February 2015, interviewer Diane Louise Jordan reminded The Prince that he had been described as ‘faith’s defender’ and pointed out that he had once described himself as ‘a defender of faith’. The Prince clarified he would in fact be 'Defender of The Faith', saying :

No, I didn’t describe myself as a defender: I said I would rather be seen as ‘Defender of Faith’, all those years ago, because, as I tried to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people’s faiths and their freedom to worship in this country. And it’s always seemed to me that, while at the same time being Defender of The Faith, you can also be protector of faiths. It was very interesting that 20 years or more after I mentioned this – which has been frequently misinterpreted – the Queen, in her Jubilee address to the faith leaders, said that as far as the role of the Church of England is concerned, it is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. I think in that sense she was confirming what I was really trying to say – perhaps not very well – all those years ago. And so I think you have to see it as both. You have to come from your own Christian standpoint – in the case I have as Defender of the Faith – and ensuring that other people’s faiths can also be practised.

Grandmabatty

Henry the eighth?

The Church of England is in existence as a RESULT of Henry VIII wanting a divorce, so they are hardly in a position to take the high ground.

The Church in the UK recognises divorce as a way to end a bad marriage. They used to ban remarrying in church but accepted civil marriage for divorced people. Charles and Camilla did not marry in church.

As for not crowning a king because he had committed adultery - given the way women have always made themselves available to royalty, and royalty's preference for married women who would not make awkward demands on behalf of their children (because their husbands would be legally assumed to have parented them) the ArchBishops must have set the crown on the heads of many known serial adulterers.

Fleurpepper

I remember it very clearly, but would have to look for evidence. No time today. Perhaps someone else.

It makes perfect sense, don't you believe? A king is for all, not just CofE.

No, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Yammy

Anniebach

Charles did not marry Camilla in church as did Megan marry
Harry. Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a church blessing.

Camilla's first marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles was a Roman Catholic one and they have to be annulled by special dispensation which is why Charles did not marry her in church.
So if he Crowns her as his queen he is not married to a divorced woman but in the eyes of some Catholics a bigamist by Church law, though by Civil law she was divorced when she married Prince Charles.
A lot of legal work which I am sure theywill find a way round.

A divorced woman as Queen consort?

That’s nothing new. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II. Queen Eleanor of England 1154AD.

Formerly wife of the King of France. The Catholic Church had no problem with that. Or Louis’ subsequent marriage either.

MawtheMerrier

You may be thinking of this FP, but I fear that your interpretation seems to be at odds with his actual words.

www.princeofwales.gov.uk/will-prince-wales-be-defender-faith-or-defender-faith

During the recording of ‘The Sunday Hour’, which aired on BBC Radio 2 in February 2015, interviewer Diane Louise Jordan reminded The Prince that he had been described as ‘faith’s defender’ and pointed out that he had once described himself as ‘a defender of faith’. The Prince clarified he would in fact be 'Defender of The Faith', saying :

No, I didn’t describe myself as a defender: I said I would rather be seen as ‘Defender of Faith’, all those years ago, because, as I tried to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people’s faiths and their freedom to worship in this country. And it’s always seemed to me that, while at the same time being Defender of The Faith, you can also be protector of faiths. It was very interesting that 20 years or more after I mentioned this – which has been frequently misinterpreted – the Queen, in her Jubilee address to the faith leaders, said that as far as the role of the Church of England is concerned, it is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. I think in that sense she was confirming what I was really trying to say – perhaps not very well – all those years ago. And so I think you have to see it as both. You have to come from your own Christian standpoint – in the case I have as Defender of the Faith – and ensuring that other people’s faiths can also be practised.

Thank you Maw. It's an interesting quote, isn't it.

Lathyrus

Yammy

Anniebach

Charles did not marry Camilla in church as did Megan marry
Harry. Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a church blessing.

Camilla's first marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles was a Roman Catholic one and they have to be annulled by special dispensation which is why Charles did not marry her in church.
So if he Crowns her as his queen he is not married to a divorced woman but in the eyes of some Catholics a bigamist by Church law, though by Civil law she was divorced when she married Prince Charles.
A lot of legal work which I am sure theywill find a way round.

A divorced woman as Queen consort?

That’s nothing new. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II. Queen Eleanor of England 1154AD.

Formerly wife of the King of France. The Catholic Church had no problem with that. Or Louis’ subsequent marriage either.

I wasn't saying she was a divorced woman I was saying that in the eyes of some Roman Catholics she is not divorced. That is why they were not married in a Church of England service.
I have a friend who has been in the same predicament for the last 35 years she could not get her marriage annulled by the Roman Catholic church although she is divorced in Civil law.
She has chosen not to marry her partner of all those years so she could take communion, who is actually a Catholic like her. She has no children for the same reason as they would be considered illegitimate.
Maybe medieval kings did things differently and if my history is correct Francois had his marriage annulled by the pope as Eleanor had only produced girls and no boys to inherit his throne. If the marriage was annulled by the then-pope then Eleanor was free to marry.

I suppose I find it all a bit silly. This working a way around the “rules” of a religion.

Your friend lived as a wife but couldn’t marry? Presumably she confessed her “sin” every week and got absolution to go on ‘sinning” the next week?

Give me a straightforward “let’s move on. I wish you well” divorce every time.

At least it’s without hypocrisy.

Isn't the whole purpose of the coronation for the Church of England to acknowledge the King's divine right to rule by anointing with holy oil etc? How could other faiths be represented in such a service?

Twaddle. Lack of a coronation, 'valid' or not, is irrelevant to his assuming the throne which also makes him Head of the CofE. He is already King and the coronation is simply public display and some religious activity.

There was a time when a monarch was not allowed to marry a Roman Catholic, yet alone a divorced one. Times change.

Why coronation

First there needs to be a law to remove the Windsors use of secret veto. It will be impossible to pass any laws through government until this is done #AbolishTheMonarchy

@ScotExpress
Nicola Sturgeon under pressure over SNP policy on the monarchy as majority of Scexiteers want to dump King Charles.

Dutch monarchy support down 50% the race is on!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=2W2eyFQC-K4

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/29/king-charless-coronation-must-reflect-a-changed-britain

Lathyrus

Umm, well as his first wife is dead, it’s not relevant.

This

I also remember Charles saying about never being head of the C OF E .

Of course, if we abolished the Monarchy, there would be no need for all of this...

Camilla is not a Roman Catholic. Her former husband is as are her children, as required by a mixed faith marriage. she however, has retained her Anglican faith, therefore her divorce is recognised. The C of E was founded on Adultery, Divorce, and Remarriage, in the case of Henry, in order to legitimise an expected baby, the future Elizabeth 1st!! Many crowned heads were adulterers, most Hanovarian kings, except George 111rd, previous to that, all Stuart kings, most notably Charles 11nd. Edward V11th was a serial adulterer long before he was crowned, so I really don't think the C of E will have too much trouble in crowning our present king who has subsequently
married the woman he truly loves, and his Queen,whom I understand is also to be crowned.

In ecclesiastical terms King Charles was a divorced man until such time as Princess Diana died - after that he automatically became a widower and thus free to re-marry.

And as the Church of England does now recognise divorce and the right of divorces to marry again, there is no reason to make trouble regarding the coronation.

The charitable view, which the church should certainly embrace, is that anyone who has made a public confession of adultery would not have done so, had he not repented it. A sin that you have repented no longer counts against you.

Was King George IV not already divorced when he was crowned? Maybe not, but an adulterous one, well-known in his day as an adulterer has been crowned, in the person of Edward VII and no-one made a fuss about that!

There may be good reasons for modernising the coronation oath, but the King's marital status and history is not one of them.

Lathyrus

Yammy

Anniebach

Charles did not marry Camilla in church as did Megan marry
Harry. Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a church blessing.

Camilla's first marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles was a Roman Catholic one and they have to be annulled by special dispensation which is why Charles did not marry her in church.
So if he Crowns her as his queen he is not married to a divorced woman but in the eyes of some Catholics a bigamist by Church law, though by Civil law she was divorced when she married Prince Charles.
A lot of legal work which I am sure theywill find a way round.

A divorced woman as Queen consort?

That’s nothing new. Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II. Queen Eleanor of England 1154AD.

Formerly wife of the King of France. The Catholic Church had no problem with that. Or Louis’ subsequent marriage either.

I have said this before, but shall say it again and go on saying it until all you people who do not belong to the Catholic church get it right!

A civil ceremony, if it is used as a form of marriage between two baptised Christians is in the eyes of the Catholic church a valid, legal marriage, so Charles and Camilla are legally married, as both were divorced prior to wedding each other.

If Camilla and Charles had wanted to be married in a Catholic church she would first have needed to obtain a Catholic ecclesiastical court's ruling that her previous marriage was for one or other of a fairly long list of reasons in Canon Law not valid, and therefore not a sacrament, in the eyes of the church. Charles as a widower would have needed no such ratification - the fact that he and his late wife had chosen not to remain married was of no account after her death.

But this is not the case, as far as I know with Charles and Camilla, so there cannot be any religious objection to them being crowned.

Actually, if there were, they could go right ahead and do the same as Napoleon I and Josephine - the pope refused to crown her, as she and Napoleon were married by a civil ceremony during the French Revolution.

Josephine broke down in tears, told the Pope that being married without the blessing of the Church had always worried her, and got her uncle, who most conveniently was a cardinal, no less, to marry her to Napoleon, whereupon the pope had no further objections to crowning her.

Please note, he did not object to crowning Napoleon who in his eyes was living in sin with a widow - only Josephine whom he regarded as Napoleon's mistress.

So, if objections are raised to Charles' and / or Camilla's coronation, they can and should find a parson to marry them, without further ado, and not make Henry VIII's mistake (if it was one) when he married Anne Boleyn and afterwards could neither find the officiating parson, a signed marriage register, nor the two witnesses required even in his day to the ceremony.

Matilda had been married and widowed before her marriage to William the Conqueror and no-one ever questioned her status as queen, Catherine of Aragon was regarded for years, as a virgin whose first husband died before they had consummated their marriage, athough the Papal dispensation that her careful father procured prior to her marriage to Henry, actually states that she was free to marry him, whether or not the former marriage had been consummated, Elizabeth was the widowed mother of sons before her marriage to Edward IV, so anyone who thinks that a queen to be crowned must have gone virgin to the king's bed is barking up the wrong tree!

So I thought that it would be interesting to see what the C of E said about divorced people joining the clergy. It's quite interesting, they are permitted to become vicars but only after the marriage has lasted 3 years. But one of the most important things to be considered when appointing a divorced person is the acceptance of the community. The church recognises that some communicants find divorce and divorced people unacceptable as clergy and says that church unity should be regarded as most important. So surely the problem is that Charles, as a divorced man marrying a divorced woman, whose husband is still alive, might split the church.

www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/Marriage%20after%20divorce%20and%20the%20ordained%20ministry.pdf

As the CofE is in rapid decline the effect of Charles becoming it's Head is pretty marginal. Hopefully we can dispense with loads of bishops sitting by right in the Lords.

I don't think the Anglican Church will split over this coronation! The majority of people wouldn't care less or have much idea of the history of how the Anglican Church came into being anyway. No George 1Vth was not divorced from Caroline of Brunswick before he was crowned . He had tried to divorce her but she refused. He did however lock her out of the Abbey when she insisted on being included. He even tried to instigate an act of Parliament to secure a divorce, but that failed to go through. Caroline was very popular with the public and they perceived that she had been very badly treated. They were never divorced, Caroline died in 1821, much to her estranged husbands relief!

Barmeyoldbat

I also remember Charles saying about never being head of the C OF E .

See my post of 10.11 today Barmeyoldbat for his exact words or if you want the link it’s
www.princeofwales.gov.uk/will-prince-wales-be-defender-faith-or-defender-faith