« Dresden remembered | Main | Bruge Beguinage »
February 15, 2005
As predicted
With the announcement that the Prince of Wales and the former Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles will marry on the 8th April has come the expected torrent of abuse from the "Royalty must be perfect" lobby. Alongside the "Saint Diana" mob, we also have the "Head of the Church of England must not be a divorcee remarried" mob, whose view is, quite frankly, irrelevant.
Taking that last first, so far, the majority of those expressing this view do not even attend any church, anyway. Therefore, I would suggest, their opinion of what the Head of State and his or her relationship is with the church is irrelevant. Besides which, I would far rather have as the Secular Governor of the Church of England a man or woman who reflects the reality of the world the rest of us live in than have someone tied to a person they do not love and who loves them not at all, as I am pretty sure has been the case in a number of Royal marriages.
Since the days of the Gospel writers, much has changed in the world, not least the life expectancy of the people entering into marriage. In the 1500's when Henry VIII (Four divorces and two beheadings!) set the Church of England apart from the See of Rome and made himself Governor, the average length of a marriage was around twelve years - because the wife normally died in childbirth before even reaching menopause! Equally, it was only really in society families that marriage actually occurred; until fairly recently (about 150 years ago) a farmer could take his "wife" to certain fairs and "trade her in" on a younger model!
Now I am in no way suggesting that we should return to that, but I do think we should recognise that there are a number of very good reasons why marriages fail - not least because they have been entered into under pressure to "make a suitable and acceptable match" and because people often mistake their feelings and plunge ahead when they should exercise more caution and spend time examining the realities of what and who they and their partner to be are.
Taking a pragmatic view, the Prince should have married Camilla 30 years ago, but knew then that the political establishment and the media would have made it impossible. We should not forget that the government of the time at that point (Labour again!) were very likely to make use of the opportunity to ram through some nasty piece of spiteful legislation, because Parliament has to approve the marriage of the Sovereign and the Heir. As the issue of further progeny doesn't enter into this union - at least on the surface - there should be no such opportunity this time.
It is equally fatuous for that House of Cards to make spiteful and judgemental comments about his or her behaviour since they are in large measure the originators of this mess through the spiteful legislation put in place in the 1600's to prevent anyone of the Roman Catholic faith ascending the throne. Since they were the ones who made plain their likely refusal for the heir to marry "morganatically" - unless to someone they approved - they must accept at least some of the blame for the subsequent debacle.
As for the "he treated Diana badly" lobby, well, they need to move on as well. As the Bishop of Gloucester has put it very succinctly, "This marriage is a new beginning and we all need to pray that they will be very happy together."
Pragmatically, this is sound advice; neither of them is flushed with the follies of youth any longer, they have known each other for a long time, more than long enough to know their own hearts. The marriage to Diana failed for the very simple reason that, while there may have been infatuation at first, this is no substitute for real friendship and for love.
The Church of England will survive having its Supreme Governor a divorced and remarried man - it may even be improved by having to ditch the sourfaced attitudes that currently are attributed to it. The Lord alone will tell in due course what His will is for this Union and for the succession to the throne. As I said in my previous post on this, with the way things are going at the moment, we may not even exist by the time Prince Charles needs to step up to the throne!
In the meantime, let's actually put aside the petty sniping; the King to be is no worse than and in some ways far better than, many of his subjects to be.
Posted by The Gray Monk at February 15, 2005 10:30 AM
Comments
The sniping continues apace, your pleas notwithstanding; witness this latest gem from The Scotsman. Better they natter on about this than some other topic, perhaps.....heaven forfend they should discuss something really important.
Posted by: MommaBear at February 15, 2005 03:23 PM
Parliament has to approve his marriage? That sucks, man. I had no idea.
Given that choice, I'd rather be a commoner than a king any day of the week.
Posted by: Russell Newquist at February 15, 2005 05:33 PM
I've no idea of the legal validity of this, but surely the theological validity of the monarch being the 'supreme governor' of the Church of England is to place the church legally subordinate to the state rather than the other way around. Even those of us of a calvinist/puritan bent would acknowledge that England's one experiment with theocracy was less than successful :-). It's surely not to demand of the monarch a standard of morality that few of his critics could achieve either.
Posted by: James F Hamilton at February 18, 2005 01:24 AM
Of course this isn't the most important issue of the day, not life war, peace or other vital interests, but since it occupies the front pages of many mags in Britain, how can you expect it not to be commented upon? And, it would seem to some of us beknighted former colonists that the proper solution is not to dumb down the requirements of the Church (why not have an 'out' gay king or an openly neo-Nazi King, after all, they also reflect the realities of life today?)
The solution would rather be to sever the tie between the King and the Church, so you can have any old immoral, womanizing, unfaithful, divorced old codger you want on the throne - doesn't matter his status with the Church. That way the Church can keep it's doctrine (very much needed, to my way of thinking, whatever the current 'realities of life') and the State can get what it seems to need.
Why in these situations is it always the Church which should do away with its biblical and theological standards? For someone named, Monk, you don't sound much like one here.
Posted by: Les from the US at February 19, 2005 10:59 PM
Thanks to all for your comments; yes, Parliament has a say in the marriage of the Sovereign, a hangover from the failed Theocracy of Cromwell! The Sovereign is not, and never has been, in the same position as the Pope, in answer to Les; the position the Sovereign occupies is that of Secular, or Legal Authority, a check on the pwoer originally in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, as representative of the Pope. The balance of Sovereign and Church has always been a delicate one, with the Church, frequently at odds with the "Crown" which is, today, effectively Tony Blair and his cronies in the Commons.
My problem with the current imbroglio is that the Sovereign is also a person, not some Godlike being living a totally blameless and perfect existence; therefore, if we, his or her subjects, can carry on and still be members of the Church, why should we apply a different set of rules for them? The Gospel is about forgiving and including the excluded, even those who have doine wrong in the past, therefore, it behooves us not to cast stone when we ourselves are hardly without blame!
Posted by: The Gray Monk at February 26, 2005 10:07 AM