Not My King

There is an alternate world where we would have King Edward on the throne of England: it is the world where any divorced member of the British royal family would be barred from taking the throne. It was the world that existed at the time of the Abdication.

Why is divorce now okay for Britain's monarchs? Is it because the Church of England decided to allow divorced people to remarry in church, even if their first husband or wife was still alive? No one mentioned at the time that this meant the monarchy was suddenly free of ancient obligations.

It seems so odd that Edward VIII had to abdicate to marry a divorced woman and yet now we have a monarch who has himself chosen to divorce and who has gone on to marry someone else who has also ended her marriage through divorce.

Who among the monarch's subjects was consulted about what is a very radical change in the way that things are done? 

At its best, a constitutional monarchy can create a rather lovely illusion, provided all those within the gilded cage stick to majestic rules, behaving well (including not divorcing) and never sharing their views (about anything). The goal is to set an example of serene dignity and relatively selfless fortitude, to create a dream of an ideal family. The current Danish Queen Mary is marvellous at sustaining the illusion - and Catherine Middleton, although sometimes a bit sugary, understands the basic principles.

The British monarchy is perpetuated only with the consent of the monarch’s subjects - and the change with regard to divorce was never requested nor consented to, merely imposed. Now we are saddled with a right Charlie, who will be followed by a tiresome climate zealot.

The only undivorced child of Queen Elizabeth II, meanwhile, seems ideally suited to be King - Edward appears to be very dutiful, entirely without opinions and unracy in the extreme. His older brothers probably think they are cleverer than he is - and his nephew William may think he is too. Perhaps it is Edward's apparent lack of arrogance that makes him the least likely to try the public's patience. His sister also seems to have learnt how a royal figure needs to behave in recent years, but she is divorced, and tends to seem impatient - and anyway, under the old rules of succession, Edward is ahead of her

POSTSCRIPT

Well - as if on cue, an article emerges revealing that Prince Edward was once mildly racy - but only in a rather sweet way, apparently.

What a world we live in, where people happily profit from publishing private letters entrusted to them long ago by those still living. Is the word ignoble right in this context? I must look it up. Adopting Humpty Dumpty's approach - he used words to mean whatever he chose - I think it is an ignoble (meaning contemptible, low, graceless, tasteless, treacherous) thing to do.