Friday, February 11, 2005

Engagement of Charles and Camilla

Is it fair that Edward VIII had to abdicate to marry Wallis Simpson, while Charles can be a divorcee and marry a divorcee do the same thing without consequences? Of course, it was rumoured that Edward VIII had Nazi sympathies, so perhaps it was providential that he went before the Second World War, indeed there may have been more going on than we know.

It is not wise to get married if you have not broken off all ties with your former girlfriend. So Charles' divorce may have been only a matter of time. However now Charles is where he is (so to speak). For the couple personally of course it is better for them to get married.

There are of course many issues worth discussing. The big question of course is whether monarchy (rule of the one) in 2005 is morally wrong in an absolute sense. Going beyond that, there is also the problem that Charles's divorce should have barred him from being the next king if the 'rules' of the monarchy still apply at all. However perhaps they don't, some argue that the easiest thing would be to just call the whole thing a day when Her Majesty dies.

From the religious side of things, it could be argued that there is no King but God, and we should call no man King/Queen (see for example, Matthew 23) and to do so is idolatry. From a secular viewpoint, is it right that children grow up knowing that they have a place and have to stay in it?

Is the argument that it wouldn't be Britain without a monarchy is like saying Africa wouldn't be Africa without Malaria?


Anonymous said...

Someone who has no idea of Nazi ideology has made the statement that Edward VIII was a Nazi. I recommend they read a few books about the subject before making inane uninformed comments. For information the definitions of God and King are as follows: - God – Superhuman being worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes. King – Male sovereign, ruler of an independent state. One fact the other fantasy you don’t need two guesses to work out which is which. The King is not responsible for making Malaria, Dysentery, AIDS or any of the other deadly diseases in Africa or anywhere else. Get a grip mate give me the British Kings every time.

Sharon J said...

Ignoring your comment regarding Edward being a Nazi and concentrating on the marriage side of the discussion, don't you think the fact that we're now more than half a century down the line would naturally cause the solutions to the two situations to be different? Times change and just because something may not have been widely acceptable during the 30s/40s doesn't necessarily mean it isn't acceptable today, so I'm afraid the comparison between Edward and Mrs Simpson and Charles and Camilla simply doesn't wash.

Also, the truth is, whilst Africa would still be Africa without malaria, it wouldn't be the Africa we know today. Everything that happens within an area will have some affect on it, and you can be absolutely certain that the Britain we live in today would be very different without the monarchy. For better or worse? Who knows. History's already been made.