(The article concerns Edward VIII’s marriage in France on 3 June 1937 to Wallis Simpson).
Incredibly, if you click on the picture below, you will be taken to a link where you can watch newsreel footage of the Rev. Mr. Jardine speaking a bit about it:
I’d imagine the nuptial blessing was ecclesiastically illegal(Duchess’s third marriage, long before remarriage after divorce was “legal” in the Anglican Church, correct?) but rather “fluff” as, in France, they would have to be married civilly anyway, and probably civilly first. I always thought it was a civil marriage; but, it speaks volumes saying that the priest’s actions, according to the AB of C were “invalid”; yet I guess the priest went undisciplined for doing such a thing.
The more things change…
And I’d agree that, based on the canons/mores at the time, the priest was wrong in doing such a thing, but that’s never stopped a whole lot of people from doing what’s wrong–they don’t want to “follow the rules”, theology, or the canons, they just want to do what they want to do. “God is wrong about this”…um, yeah, right.
Misplaced maybe, but the one I feel sorry for is the late Princess Margaret, who decided against marrying Peter Townsend in order to avoid a repeat of the bad example above. But then along came Camilla and Charles, and Margaret’s example was ignored.
Actually, Bookworm, Camilla was always Charles’ love. If he had been able to marry her in the first place, none of the unpleasantness would have ensued. But protocol dictated that he find a young and virginal wife from the aristocratic set/nobility and Diana fit the bill. She was too young, insecure, unprepared and naive and he was too stodgy, set in his ways, self-centered and impatient.
On the other hand, we wouldn’t have the lovely William and Harry or the positive changes that Diana brought to the princess role if they hadn’t wed. And, in the case at hand, Bertie turned out to be a fine king and his older brother became a Nazi sympathizer. Good thing he abdicated.
The moral of this story is that relationships are manufactured by humans and I’m sure that God often sighs when He is invoked (blamed? lol) for joining them together. While I’m sure that “matches made in Heaven” do exist, I suspect that most require God to do what He can with “crooked lines.”
Actually, the law on marriage does not apply to the Royal family.
Jardine left the CofE, became a bishop in a tiny Evangelical schism from the Free Church of England and finally ended his life in South Africa.
The failure of a marriage, divorce and remarriage are difficult and complicated subjects. Different churches have different approaches but I don’t think anyone has a one size fits all answer to it.
The Coptic Church may be the closest to being spot on from a legalistic and purely scriptural approach. They allow divorce and remarriage only in cases of adultery and then only for the aggrieved spouse. The Roman approach is pretty much “No” but huge numbers of Catholics get around the ban on divorce and remarriage through annulments which are not hard to get in many dioceses. Most Protestants these days have no real church discipline limiting divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox Churches tolerate divorce reluctantly and will permit second and third marriages. But following the sacramental discipline of the early Church prohibit fourth marriages in all circumstances. (Sometimes divorces must be approved by church courts for which the acceptable reasons are limited.)
Frankly I think that divorce has become far too commonplace and socially acceptable. And the ease with which most churches will marry divorcees on a near no questions asked basis is disturbing. Still I don’t agree with the “just say no” approach that Rome has. Sometimes a marriage was gravely defective and probably doomed from the beginning. In other cases a marriage can collapse because one or both parties seriously abandon their responsibilities. Should the guiltless spouse be punished for life?
I personally like the three A’s rule. Those being the grounds for divorce…
1. Adultery- Presuming we are talking about a pattern of behavior and not a one time lapse.
2. Abandonment- This can cover many things besides the obvious. It may include abandoning the faith, I am not talking about going from TEO over to the Methodists. I am talking about apostasy. If you hubby comes home one day and announces he has become a Muslim and expects everyone to follow his lead, it’s time to head for the exit. It can also include one spouse unilaterally deciding to refuse the other their marital rights on a permanent or nearly so basis.
3. Abuse- This too can cover a wide range of issues, not just beatings. I.E. if your spouse is a drunk or drug addict and refuses to make an effort to deal with the problem, again it may be time to head for the exit.
Just some random thoughts.
Thanks, #5, that’s a good post.
“If he had been able to marry her in the first place…”
Oh, please. The party line is that he declined to ask and went on a military deployment. She decided against waiting for him to return and seeing whether or not the silly “virgin” issue could be worked out; thus marrying another. None of them seemed to know the meaning of the word “fidelity” by any definition. And Diana was not the only fish in the “noble” sea, either–having a past love is not an excuse to cheat. Most humans on Earth have had those.
Nobody’s in their marriage(well, maybe; maybe not) except them, but from what I hear and read it can be a little bit of a challenge, possibly like all marriages, possibly not. Perhaps they find the 24/7 deal a little harder than furtive weekend trysts.
We can Monday-morning quarterback all day–who knows where it would all be had “Fritz and Vicky”(God rest their souls) ruled Germany/Prussia and Kaiser Wilhelm II not been a basic nutcase, either. It probably wasn’t too hard for WWII to play right off WWI. But nothing is without cost–better not to have a Nazi sympathizer as King, but whether or not the stress of it all put said King in an early grave is up for grabs…sad…
Wallis Simpson had already dumped one husband and married another to climb up the social ladder when she met the Prince of Wales who had more or less a “policy” of having affairs with married women since there would be no consequences if they got pregnant nor would they expect him to marry them. The Prince’s current (married) girlfriend was a friend of Wallis’s and introduced her to the Prince. Within a month she had cut the girlfriend out and become his mistress. She was still married to husband #2 at this time and certainly had no intention of letting go of that good thing unless she could see a clear advantage with the Prince. He became besotted with her and promised to marry her. At that point she left her husband and they began trying to pursue a way in which they could be married (which ultimately involved his abdication).
Please tell me that even in these absurd days the Church of England would not consider this a couple that should be sacramentally married.
I love that this guy says that it is “scandalous” that a former “King of England and Head of the Church” should be denied the “services” of the church when he wants them. The nerve!
That said, I would certainly grant husbands #1 and #2 the right to re-marry since it is clear that Wallis never had the slightest intention of entering into a sacramental marriage with either one of them — assuming she actually knew what that was. Supposedly she had at least one well-documented affair while married to the Duke — I’m sure would have considered trading up again except that the Pope is celibate.
Hmmm…actually a quick check with Wikipedia reveals that husband #2 was married with a young child when he started having an affair with Wallis (who was married to husband #1 at the time) and he then divorced his wife and married Wallis. Oh well…at least he could go back to his wife assuming she still wanted him and could stop laughing.
What can you expect when marriage is considered an expectation and duty, which it is (in varying degrees and for various reasons) by society? Get rid of that expectation, admit that not all people are the “marrying kind” and quit forcing the issue.
And the Church should lead the charge in this, as it did in the beginning. Jesus had married and single, male and female traveling and living with Him. There is no account of Him playing matchmaker or trying to marry off His single followers. Quite the opposite — He asked people if they would leave everything behind to follow Him, and He declared that He was not bringing peace but a sword that would divide families and households.
No need to shine the spotlight on “royal” privilege (and certainly not only on Anglican royals, as the RC kings and popes had all sorts of liaisons, as well). JFK was a man-whore, as are many American politicians and world leaders. Perhaps those contemplating politics should refrain from “holy matrimony” until their political ambition is sated and/or spent. Lord knows, there will always be women with low self-esteem who want to hitch their wagons to the political animals, despite the known rocks and dips in the road.