Letter: King Charles III: no natural defects in his body politic
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Since the theological pot has recently been boiling away fiercely, and indeed threatening to boil over, it is rather surprising that the Church of England should embroil itself in a democratic controversy - namely the fitness or otherwise of the Prince of Wales for the throne.
Until Charter 88 manages to achieve a coup d'etat, it is worth recalling what the common law position has been ever since the 16th century when the Church of England was formed. The king has 'two bodies' - a 'natural' one and a 'politic' one. The latter,
constituted for the Direction of the People . . . is utterly devoid of other natural Defects and Imbecilities, which the body natural is subject to, and therefore, what the King does in his Body politic, cannot be invalidated . . . by any Disability of his natural body. (Plowden's Reports, compiled under Elizabeth I)
The legal language may be a little obscure, but the message is clear: the heir to the throne's marriage has no bearing whatsoever on his suitability for the throne. It is, or at least logically ought to be, an article of faith that the coronation acts as a purgative. That (believe it or not) is what the service is actually for.
It was, of course, royal marital arrangements that prompted Henry VIII to establish the Church of England in the first place. Yet Henry himself, and subsequent monarchs such as Charles II, George IV and Edward VII, whose adherence to the orthodox doctrine on marriage was more noted in the breach than the observance, were not ejected from the throne.
Today, surely, a Church that is seeking to meddle with the state is a Church inviting constitutional reform? If the monarchy is not sacrosanct, why should the Church be?
If the Prince of Wales's status is
being questioned, why not that
of the Church - should it not be disestablished?
Yours faithfully,
GERALD MONTAGU
London, NW6
9 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments