Prince Charles

Sorry annep I don’t get what you mean. My reference to stoning to death was in reply to a quote from the Ten Commandments.

Bridget ?
Anniebach I think there's a difference between using your brain to decide if something is right or wrong and stoning someone to death.

Sorry to disagree again icanhandthemback

Thou shalt not commit adultery is one of the ten in the Old Testament, but when Christ was asked which of the ten was the greatest he split them into two commandments ‘thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself.

When a woman was being stoned for adultery Christ said
‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’

Defender of the faith means defender of the faith of the Church of England, no king or queen can put themselves forward as the defender of the faith of all Christians, it realy stems from the split in the RC Church and Henry 8 .

Perhaps one can defend it without adhering to it ?

Defender of the Faith. The Christian faith. what a laugh!

Well said Day6. Spot on!

Sadly with or without them, their will never be equality, equal distribution of wealth, lifestyle,life expectancy,good health care , education etcetc, only we as individuals know where we come on that scale, hence our differing opinions etc.
I still find it hard to believe that I am still seeing pictures of starving children, equally as desperate as those I was shown when I was a child.

Anniebach, I think it depends on the circumstances as to how do I feel. If it was somebody who had openly had an affair for 8 years putting her family through hell and was still trying to entice her husband back so he could pay the school fees, I'd feel very anti it. If it was your average people who couldn't make a marriage work but not through lack of trying, I'd give my blessing. Prince Charles is in rather a unique position as his role will be Defender of the Faith. I think if you take the luxuries that his position entails, you should abide by the rules and be a role model. If you don't want that responsibility, clear the way for someone who does.
Jalima1108, yes she is the Defender of the Faith. 'Representative' is maybe the wrong word but the Faith HM defends is supposed to based on his and his Father's words where there's quite an explicit "You shall not commit adultery," being given as a message!

To get back to the subject just a bit - I see Charles as a very wealthy, indulged individual. I am sure he is very nice but as for hard work, he has the ideas (maybe) and minions do the donkey, work putting everything in place for him. He may read the correspondence and have meetings about goings on concerning him, but he doesn't slave over a typewriter/computer keeping on top of things. He had a whole host of people to see to his every need.

His 'job' is turning up to open things, see people, go to dinners, make short speeches.

all arrangements are made for him. he doesn't know what it is to run out of petrol, breakdown on the road, sit in traffic jams or have to stand on a train or travel with the great unwashed on a plane - with no leg room.

He is a privileged man. He was not right for Diana and must have KNOWN she was to become little more than his sperm receptacle. They didn't make good companions as they were very different from each other. His friends were older and stuffier than the people shy Diana mixed with. I felt for Diana. She did want more (wouldn't any woman) and knew he carried a torch for Camilla and still saw her. Any wife would be completely gutted to be the spare wheel. Her misery must have been very great. She was stuck given their position. I rather cheered for her when she played him at his own adulterous game, although the whole situation was very sad. (I was in the middle of a bad marriage at the same time and had a husband who didn't really want a wife so I knew the loneliness and heartache. )

I am glad he has found happiness with Camilla, but the whole family has a life which is cushioned from any reality known to most of us.

I loathe the way in which all of a sudden those in the public eye, including the royal family, have been elevated to some sort of god-like status. The media fires that adoration but a sheep-like public buys into it. The worship of Meghan and Harry - really?

I am rather tired of this celebrity monarchy, so I sort of favour the slightly crusty, stuffy Charles. My monarchy has to be distant and slightly mysterious. I do not however go along with the notion that they 'work hard'. They show up.

It is all they have ever known and all that is ever required of them. In between times they are tucked up in luxury. Where is Charles now? At a pal's villa enjoying a private beach, wonderful grounds, lavish dinners? Most of their year is an opulent holiday. They live like that whether they travel or not.

I think the Queen has reigned well. I hope Charles becomes King, and I favour his heirs being retained but as for the rest of the Windsor clan? No thanks. They are an anachronism who rely on public adulation to exist.

True Bridgeit It’s all so sad

There are many reasons why people are unfaithful,not all affairs are callously & selfishly embarked upon. Strange as it may seem it is often the most caring people who do take this route initially believing that they can avoid hurting anyone, eventually realising that they cannot.

*of not if.

How do you react in your church when a divorced couple marry ?
We were invited to a church wedding - it was his third marriage and her second.
(they are divorced now)

annep
I never give to food banks.
Some if those who use them, exploit the system. Some smoke and drink alcohol, some have lived beyond their means, fallen into debt and now rely on the government to bail them out.
Many who live in so called poverty, have 50" tvs which are on all day, ipads for their children and live on takeaways. I've seen it on tv and in real life.
Nothing like the poverty in 3rd world countries where they 'wash' their cooking pot with sand, clothes on a stone and trudge for long distances to a standpipe with pots for water.
I make no apologies whatsoever, for my views.

HM is not 'Christ's representative on earth'

That is what the Pope is supposed to be to all the RCs in the world.

HM is Defender of the Faith.

I can icanhanditback I respect your views even though I can’t agree with them. How do you react in your church when a divorced couple marry ?

We don't have to agree, Anniebach, I just think that giving someone the role as the Head of the Church of England who has committed adultery is a bit like giving the job of Pope to someone who is married. It just doesn't wash but that is just my point of view. As to being a representative, I didn't say she was the only one. However, I am happy to differ with you. I am sure you can live with that.

It’s my nature to disagree ? I thought most people disagreed if they thought something was unfair or unjust

Not at all, Annie, You can disagree with me as much as you like and I have no doubt you will because that seems to be your nature, although I notice you keep changing your stance. One day I hope to be as knowledgeable and perfect as you are, but in the meantime I can only dream.

ok Sparklefizz. sorry you no longer want to discuss the tbread because I have disagreed with you .

sorry icanhandthemback. You may think of the queen as Christ’s representative on earth I do not. Where does these leave Baptists, Methodists, The Church in Wales, Christians who are not members of any church ?

If she was so I would agree with the posters who condemn her wealth whilst people are homeless

Thinking of previous kings I certaintly wouldn’t think of them as Christ’s representative

Anniebach I am taking Merlot's advice to give up.

Sparklefizz I did not accuse you of lying, you posted an untruth, are you still saying you were right saying Charles wanted to be a tampon Even though the recording of the phone call is posted on this tbread ?

Merlot, you asked me a question, I gave you a reply, I said nothing offensive , you came back with the accusation I had slapped down you didn’t, I did not.

So Charles said a lot of things he wished he had not in what was supposed to be a private phone call.

Many people have failed marriages. Why pick on Prince Charles? Marry in haste and regret at leisure. Just because he is rich does not mean he has to be good at relationships.

All I can say is his marital difficulties ares really no different to many posts I have looked at this afternoon.

Charles looks very happy and settled now with Camilla. This is real life not fairy tales.