A sensational declare that King Charles’s coronation might spark a constitutional disaster due to his confession of adultery has been dismissed by main specialists.
On Friday, Anthony Holden, who wrote a biography of the King, despatched a letter to The Guardian newspaper arguing that any coronation was more likely to be invalid.
Holden wrote: ‘The Church of England has by no means topped a divorced man as King, not to mention one who has publicly confessed to adultery – with the related girl anticipating to be topped Queen Consort.
The late Robert Runcie [the former Archbishop of Canterbury] informed me this may require a revision of the coronation oath, which might require a brand new statute of Parliament.
Claims that King Charles’s coronation might spark a constitutional disaster due to his confession of adultery has been dismissed by main specialists
‘Given the conference that Parliament doesn’t debate the monarchy with out the monarch’s consent, this may require the Prime Minister to hunt King Charles’s permission. This, Runcie informed me, would quantity to a constitutional disaster.’
Holden’s views on the monarchy have altered with time. In 2002 he wrote a Guardian article titled ‘From flag-waver to republican’, stating: ‘The extra I studied the Home of Windsor, the extra of a republican I turned.’
However Sir Vernon Bogdanor, a analysis professor at King’s Faculty London’s Centre for British Politics and Authorities, dismissed Holden’s argument.
He stated: ‘Charles and Camilla’s marriage ceremony was adopted by a Service of Prayer and Dedication, led by Archbishop Rowan Williams. This certainly overrides something Robert Runcie could or could not have stated. It’s clear that the King has obeyed the principles of the Church. Rowan Williams is, I believe, in a greater place to interpret the principles of the Church than Anthony Holden.’
Royal biographer Hugo Vickers stated: ‘I am unable to see what the issue is. For a few years Holden has held a grudge towards the King. To him I might say, occasions transfer on.’
Barrister Geoffrey Robertson KC stated: ‘The coronation is a authorized irrelevance, only a foolish and superstitious Church of England ritual. Charles has no want in any respect to be topped by a minority church.’
A Lambeth Palace spokesman stated: ‘We will not touch upon accounts of a non-public dialog that Robert Runcie could have had whereas he was Archbishop from 1980 to 1991. However clearly a lot has modified since that point – each in society and within the Church of England. The present Archbishop, Justin Welby, is wanting ahead to crowning King Charles III and the Queen Consort in Might.’
