Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

The real bad news is the Aussies found that the coronation oil makes a crappy marinade for the coronation barbie. Also, the coronation quiche is lethal too, it contains broad beans that causes too much farting.

They are going republican soon.

PS Are Charlie and Camilla tampons on sale anywhere, they had a fetish with them.....

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Adultery - sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse.

On that note, how is John Redwood?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I thought this was a thread about the bloke in Casualty at first.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

We get an extra day off.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

How ?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Well if he had not married her to spawn the next generation or committed adultery later then it would be highly unlikely that she would have died in a car crash in Paris and that is without the conspiracy theories about her death being caused deliberately that I do actually believe

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/a/img856/9090/jca.gif

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Maybe best not to selectively quote the Bible unless you know what you’re doing with it.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” - from the mouth of the Man himself. Or how about “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Seeing as you’re interested in his adultery. Hint: none of the religious experts who wanted Jesus to condemn the adulterer actually picked up a stone when challenged. They all slunk off.

Also a lot of stuff about repentance, forgiveness and the like. We have no idea really how he’s dealt with all that in the well over 25 years since those events.

As for the oath of allegiance, I imagine it sounded like a great idea when they thought it up in some back office in Buckingham Palace. When you frame it as opening something to all people which was previously reserved to the nobility it even sounds quite modern and forward looking. They appear however not to have looked at the actual words they were proposing we say or thinking through what they actually mean.

It does rather lay bare the essential difference between a king and an elected president, though as a people we are so unruly I wonder whether we’d be any happier being asked to swear allegiance to the Flag, or a Republic, or some such.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

But then there is Matthew 5 the good old sermon on the mount, isn't there that isn't quite as forgiving or tame

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

The butterfly effect.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Do you mean just like the Founder of the CoE?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

‘Judge not’ is also from the Sermon on the Mount.

I’m not saying Jesus doesn’t expect the lives of his followers to be transformed, rather I’m saying that to point to one sinful act, no matter how egregious, and to use it to declare someone unfit for future office or responsibility, is to completely, comically, fail to grasp how that process of transformation is supposed to work.

Elsewhere, the apostle John wrote, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

This is the part Seph seems to be ignorant of. Anyone can quote a commandment. Christian life, however, is about discipleship, relationship, and a life progressively transformed. It is not a scorecard against a set of rules (and actually, the Old Testament faith of ancient Israel wasn’t that either. At no time did baldly quoting from Exodus settle anything).

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I do agree with you. You only have to look at what sins David committed and he was still blessed.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

Henry VIII is the founder and he made a mockery of marriage

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Just like the Founder of the CoE…

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I can see both sides but if I was to express a preference I would have no monarchy at all and if pressed I would rather Charlie stood down and William took his place.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Where in Oz?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Are you referring to Nikki Page or Susan Precious? If any nukie took place, is most likely after the separation/divorce.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Nikki Page - divorce happened February 2004, Redwood and Page (officially) got together June 2003 (a week after he took a mortgage out on Page’s house.

It’s still adultery until the divorce goes through…

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Thanks Hughatha!

But the wife had gone bonkers for 2-3 years before that. They were separated.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

LOL. Have you read what you just posted, you sound nuts.

Of course, it was nothing at all to do with the press chasing her then (or the fact she no seat belt on). :rolleyes:

Re: Charlie Farley
 

But it has to do with your adultery comment…

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Blaming Diana's death on Chrales is a very very lose thread of a theory and would hardly hold up in a court of law.


The thing I have never understood is why the King or Queen up until last year were seen as the head of the church. What is special about them to make them a chuch leader?

They don't exactly do anything for the church do they?

And as has been mentioned in this thread already, Charles is not the perfect christian following christian beliefs.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

:clap:

Re: Charlie Farley
 

You accurately describe his history but show no awareness of any process of repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation that may have occurred.

Of course, much of that would be private, so you wouldn’t be expected to know. The problem from my perspective is that you’re unwilling to allow even the possibility that it might have happened, or might be happening.

I truly hope nobody ever so totally writes you off for something you did half a lifetime ago. Or perhaps they did, and that’s why you find forgiveness of others such a difficult concept?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Being judgemental is so much easier for some of us sadly.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I find your reasoning flawed on multiple levels.

Seeing as you’ve chosen to locate this discussion in the sphere of Christian faith, I recommend you go and read one of the most important recent works on the subject, Exclusion and Embrace by the Croatian theologian, Miroslav Volf. Having lived through the Yugoslav civil war he knows a thing or two about appalling behaviour and the cost of forgiveness.

However, seeing as I know there’s not a cat in hell’s chance of you actually doing that, I’ll sum it up in a line most relevant to what you have just posted: forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same thing, and reconciliation is by far the more difficult. The lack of reconciliation between people is by no means evidence of lack of repentance on the part of the sinner.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But now I tell you: anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28



That expands the guilty of adultery group out a bit.



But it's not that part of his life that concerns me but does he truly follow Jesus (like his mother did). At one point I believe he said that he wanted to be the defender of faith as compared to defender of THE faith. That's a big difference.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

He is not and never will be my King

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Religion may be the excuse for many wars and much violence but secular governments have been the ones committing the greatest genocides. And where religion is more involved it is often the abuse of religion or religion just the vehicle for incitement or involvement.
The crusades were political and militarist and used religion (or ignorance of religion) to promote action. They were not primarily religious in nature. The same is true in many situations where the men of violence will use religion to maintain the violence for their own ends.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I am not sure but I do not think religion is the sole excuse for any major war since the Crusades and even if you take ever single war in history up to say 1900 you will not be able to beat the grand total of deaths from WWI WWII Vietnam and Korea combined none of which had anything to do with religion

When you consider WWI killed between 15 and 22 Million people I doubt all war up to that point got even close to that figure

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Seph, you may be shocked but we are (almost) in violent agreement on this. :D

His wasn't responsible for Diana's death but his actions & infidelity added a lot to the context in which Diana found herself and, fatally, tried to escape from.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

From my understanding, there is no Christian teaching where an obscenely wealthy individual who demands deference & fealty from others is appropriate as the Head of a Church. I may be wrong though :)

Re: Charlie Farley
 

https://borgenproject.org/top-12-dea...rs-in-history/

Those alone add up to 48-58 million…

Then there’s

*Christians vs Muslims

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...history-162752

It’s also estimated that the Mongol Conquest deaths were between 30-60 million (1206-1324), 25 million died in the Qing v Ming Dynasty wars (1616–1662), and quite a lot more like those.

Whilst the 20th Century industrialised war, our ancestors were no slouch at it either (for various religious, dynastic, or nationalistic reasons).

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Ok so I was wrong but you see what I mean about shear volumes of death with nothing to do with religion.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

And that's the key point certain individuals miss, if she'd been wearing a seat belt she'd probably be alive, like another passenger in the car is, the best assassins the world can proffer and after all that planning they'd leave something to chance like a seat belt :spin:

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Who's Harry's father???

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I agree

Re: Charlie Farley
 

The low interest shown in the coronation is indicative of things changing and moving away from the traditions that we expect.

We are doing some articles on the coronation this week and I will ensure this features.

See Day 1's article, any feedback welcomed :-)

Re: Charlie Farley
 

You have some strange sentences in this paragraph:

- the King reigns but does not rule.
- the coronation does not "ensure" the support of the people. It may hope to increase but that would be as far as it goes
- suggest you are overdoing the "inspiring awe & respect" bit :)
- he can't protect or defend the country, nor govern it with or without the merciful part
- hoping for "loyalty and devotion" is a bit of a log shot to be fair

Re: Charlie Farley
 

It could be James Hewitt but to me Harry takes his looks from the Corgis.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

__________________________________________________ ____


Thanks for the feedback we really appreciate your comments and they have spawned other thoughts regarding tradition. I think the way that you have inferred to down play the emotional strength in some of the sentences really does go to show the tradition and loss of interest in the monarchy over the last few years/decades.

Thanks again for your insight. Much appreciated.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Also, we are centuries past the point where the new king wasn’t king until crowned. Succession is determined by Parliament, thanks to the Bill of Rights (1689), the Act of Settlement (1701) and various subsequent amendments.

Thanks to the rules of succession set out in these acts, Charles became Heir Apparent at the same time his mother became Queen, and became King the moment she died.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I think that this is an important point. The coronation is just the flag waving and crown carriage-ing bit. No significant meaning in the real world for the vast majority of the country.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Much depends on exactly how it’s framed during the coronation service next week. If we are presented with a multi-faith act of worship then we have been left with a meaningless muddle that won’t be true to the confession of any religion represented there. I would be surprised if any senior Muslim or Sikh invited to the coronation would be happy with that, even if some of the liberal twits in the Church of England hierarchy are.

For what it’s worth, I know Archbishop Justin to be an evangelical and while he will be keen to allow the reality of multicultural Britain to be demonstrated I do not believe he will allow the impression that the service is one in which all gods are recognised and invoked.

‘Defender of Faith’ could be an intellectually muddled attempt to construct a single understanding of faith and deity out of all major religions, and actually I suspect that in his youth that’s probably where Charles was leaning. Today, however, I suspect it will be presented to us as a part of a constitutional responsibility to the freedom and wellbeing of all people regardless of their beliefs.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

She was in it because she was returning to the apartment of Dodi Fayed (her apparent lover).

She died because she wasnt wearing a seat belt, when the car she was in (driven by a drunken driver, at twice the speed limit) crashed into a pillar, while apparently being persued by members of the press.

While I dont particularly care for Charles, blaming him for something he had nothing to do with is utter nonsense.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

In defence of Charlie, as head of CofE, he ain't Dalai Lama sucking kid's tongues...

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

The title of Defender of The Faith was bestowed on Henry VII for his defence of the Catholic Church against the trreat of Martin Luther. The title has been passed down to every monarch since. It has nothing to do with tolerance of other religions and certainly nothing to do with the CoE.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Well then we (the public) are also indirectly responsible because if nobody gave a toss about them the press would have had no reason to be chasing them. I doubt Charles spends much of his time reading the gutter press so we must be more responsible than he was?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

So not what Jaymoss said then, mind you considering you said religion was the most common cause of wars earlier in the thread I shouldn't be to surprised

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I think what Seph is driving at is that if Charles had not slept with his original girlfriend after marrying Diana, had paid attention to his wife's needs, etc. i.e. done his "duty" as it were, Diana would not have been in that car with or without a seatbelt.

It is ironic as I thought that the Windsor's were big on "duty" ...

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

But if the press were not feeding the public obsession, and they were obsessed with her way before any infidelity so to me that's just a red herring.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

No, in all probability, she would not have left Charles if he was a caring husband so she would not have been in that tunnel in Paris.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Although it was duty that caused him to seek out and marry a ‘suitable’ bride from a noble family, rather than the society divorcee he wanted to marry …

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I genuinely have no idea how far she was aware of what was going on at the time they met and got engaged. Presumably she talked about it in one of the interviews she gave later in her life. I’d be curious to know.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Yes, duty to find the bride but not to be the dutiful husband. Not exactly aligned with the official royal playbook i.e. personal wishes are subordinate to the requirements of the "job".

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Duped by the courtiers you mean.Both were victims of the plotting and planning of the court.Also how much meddling came from Mountbatten and the Duke of Edinburgh?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Charlie should have had the balls to stand up for the love of his life like his uncle instead of being a puppet. A puppet who in just a few days will be crowned King

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Easy for you to say who has never ever been under the microscope of the world and media.Easy for you to say who has the freedom that Charles has never had.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Edward managed to do it. Easy for me to say who has never had the privilege. Never known a life where I wanted for nothing or had the best health care without waiting and so on. Poor Charles hey

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Wonder who is paying for all this cobblers? Charles should sell that crown and fund a few food banks.
This country goes ever backwards, poorer and increasingly irrelevant.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

She wasn't a divorcee until well into the affair, she was still married when it began.
See https://news.sky.com/story/the-rise-...nsort-12871317

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I’m thinking way further back than that. Charles and Camilla met in the very early 70s and dated, but she eventually became engaged and married Andrew Parker-Bowles. There are all sorts of rumours as to why she got engaged to someone else while Charles was out of the country. But they remained close and got closer as the years went by.

https://www.today.com/popculture/roy...line-rcna56336

Re: Charlie Farley
 

You have provided no credible reasons, just complete nonsense, hes no more responsible than you are.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

And many DON'T.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Maybe there should be a referendum. Seeing as parliament is there to do the will of the people maybe it is time to see what the will actually is

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Referendums seem to work wonderfully in Switzerland, mind you in Switzerland they don’t even have a president as we would understand it - there’s a committee of 7 and one of them is chosen to be president for 12 months at a time. While doing the job they gain no more executive power than any of the other six. Distribution of power is embedded in their culture from the top to the bottom.

Here, we elect MPs based on their political philosophy and affiliation more than we do their exact policy platform; even the manifesto at election time is a broad programme for 5 years and we happily vote for the one that fits our outlook best, even if we don’t agree with all of it.

Referendums are alien to our way of thinking. They polarise us in ways our political discourse is ill-equipped to handle. Neither the Scottish independence referendum nor the Brexit referendum really settled the issue for large numbers of those on the losing side. For better or worse, we have a system of representative democracy and we have little choice but to lean into that.

For the same reason, whether it’s a king, or a figurehead like the president of Ireland or Germany, I think we need to stick with a system of government that is tied to Parliament. I don’t much like the idea of that much executive power resting in the hands of one person, and given how poorly we as a nation deal with polarised politics, we of all people don’t need an executive president who is also supposed to be the head of state and symbol of national unity, but who is unlikely ever to have the support of much more than half the electorate.

At present, while he’s not as popular as his mother, Charles , or rather, the institution of the monarchy embodied in him, still has approval ratings any elected president would die for. If that changes substantially, over the long run, then some process might need to be devised to decide whether to change it. But given our recent history with referendums, an all-or-nothing vote on abolishing the king would be a very dangerous prospect.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Nothing will ever settle anything though will it as there will always be differing opinions. The whole system is a mess we are under the control of an unelected leader as we type.

Thankfully we do not have to do anything like actually pay homage to any of them

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

If Charles is "Charlie Farley" then that makes Camilla "Piggy Malone" :) (for those with long memories)

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

There is no law stating that the King and members of the Royal family cannot vote, but the Royal Family do not vote by convention, given their duty to be impartial.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65481184

I am wondering: did the secret service, "cleaned" the seats of the tube, classes at the pub etc (DNA protection)
Neither wore gloves...

When, he was at Sandhurst and he popped in at the local, here in Camberley, the protection officers took all the beer glasses with them, when they were done. Mind you Harry was around too...

In the other hand, there is no DNA protection for Sophie or Edward or Louise... everybody knew Louise, their daughter, lovely girl, she was working at a garden Center nearby.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Princess Anne allegedly is not happy with Camilla and her going as Queen

https://www.gbnews.com/royal/camilla...onation-dinner

just trying again to find the topic on this thread

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 ----------

Coronation Medal for NHS staff. I imagine they would prefer an extra £ or 2 an hour though but that is a whole different topic. Soldiers and other emergency services also to recieve it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65489760

https://news.sky.com/story/soldiers-...medal-12873380

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

I wont actually get to see most of the coronation.
As I work late evenings, I dont get up until around midday, by which time it will be more than half over.

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

How would you define British culture?

Re: Charlie Farley
 

Re: Charlie Farley
 

A politician’s non-answer. Unsurprising I guess.

I’m not interested in what your opinion of ‘other reasonable Brits’ is. I would like you - yourself, and in your own words - to define British culture, because you stated, specifically, that Charlie should stand up for it.

So please, tell us, what exactly should he be standing up for?