Political Commentary: Just an irritating royal rash, but it could turn nasty

WHEN THE Fellows of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, notice girls with clipboards and men with television cameras outside the Master's Lodge, they say to one another:

'I see the Royal Family is a subject of controversy once again.'

'But console yourself, Senior Tutor, with the thought that we shall have vintage port tonight, for the Master is generous with his television fees.'

The Master concerned, Lord St John of Fawsley, is equally generous about the monarchy. As some are instinctive republicans, and most of us (though a decreasing proportion) are moderate monarchists, so Lord St John is an ardent royalist. In his role of 'constitutional expert' - an ancient office of profit under the Crown - he loses no opportunity, of which he has many, of assuring his audience that all is for the best, Charles will duly become King and really there is nothing to worry about.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, arrives at the same practical conclusion by a different route. He believes that there is a good deal to worry about, but that there is nothing much to be done at present: 'Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.' (Matthew vi. 34.) Mr John Major takes the same view, which saves him from trying to impose his opinion, if he has one, on a divided Cabinet.

The crisis, according to this way of looking at things, is not really a crisis at all but, rather, a temporary irritation or discomfort. It is as if Charles is one of those worrying little lumps which, we hope, will go away if we do not press them; the Princess of Wales, a small red rash which will diminish daily if we refrain from scratching it. But some lumps have the nasty habit of growing and killing people if they are not dealt with; while some rashes can spread to the point of being intolerable unless they are treated promptly.

The basis of this policy of none too masterly inactivity is the hope that Her Majesty will reign for a long period. It has even been suggested that Charles will be so ancient when he ascends the Throne that in the course of nature we shall not have to put up with him for long. Hence he will rapidly be succeeded by his son, good King William V. Carry on, Ma'am]

She is, we are told, in excellent health. Her sainted mother is 93. Why should she not reign over us till she is of a similar age? Why not, indeed] But Dr Carey at any rate will know that the Burial Service informs us that in the midst of life we are in death. And the Act of Settlement 1700 states that 'it standeth wholly in the Pleasure of Almighty God' to prolong the life of the sovereign.

This is one of a series of Acts, from the Coronation Oath Act 1688 to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which regulate the monarchy. They inaugurated and reinforced the 18th-century regime of Anglican totalitarianism which was gradually mitigated in the 19th century. They were concerned with securing not merely a Protestant but an Anglican succession. The Act of Settlement says that 'whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England as by law established'. The Bill of Rights 1689 says that anyone who is or marries a Roman Catholic 'shall be excluded, and be forever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm'.

Prince Charles is not a Catholic and is unlikely to become one - though several of his acquaintances have joined or are contemplating joining the Roman Church in protest against women priests. However, Camilla Parker Bowles is a Catholic. Unless the statutes are amended, Charles cannot marry her and become King.

It was previously thought - there was no Act - that the Lord Chancellor could not be a Roman Catholic. This was considered discriminatory. In particular, it was thought to be unfair to Lord Rawlinson, a Catholic, who was the favourite to succeed Lord Hailsham in the post. So in 1974 an Act was passed clearing the way for Catholics and for Lord Rawlinson. Alas, he was not to Lady Thatcher's taste. Lord Hailsham had accordingly to do a second stint after 1979.

It would be ironical, as people say, if a similar Act were passed concerning the Crown, Charles duly married Mrs Parker Bowles and he still did not succeed. For in these circumstances he probably would not succeed. He would himself have been divorced and would be marrying a divorced woman, as Mrs Parker Bowles would necessarily have to be. It is asserted confidently that the precedent of Edward VIII and the twice-divorced Mrs Simpson would still apply - that the Prince, divorced by now, could not marry a divorced woman and still ascend the throne.

This, I must say, seems a little hard to me. His choice would be celibacy, a mistress or mistresses, or marriage to a previously unmarried woman. Nevertheless, Henry VIII notwithstanding, the choice is logical, given the Anglican Church's attitude to divorce and Charles's prospective position as head of that established church.

Indeed, it is arguable that the choice is over-generous to poor Charles, and is not logical enough. For the position of the Western Church, of which the Church of England is but an offshoot, is that a marriage which has been blessed by God endures until the death of one of the parties. Diana, like her mother-in-law, appears to enjoy excellent health; though, as the Prayer Book says, one can never be sure about these things. In the eyes of God, Charles remains married to her until she dies; and vice versa. Divorce, a secular act, may lawfully regulate their property arrangements and the care of their children. It cannot affect the permanent relationship of man and wife, any more than it can that of parent and child.

However, the Church of England is the national church. Even divorced people can claim the right to be married there, subject to residential qualifications. Clergymen who hold the traditional doctrine, and refuse to marry persons of whom one is divorced, are exempt by statute from performing the ceremony. This conscience- clause does not apply to Holy Communion, from which only 'notorious evil livers' may lawfully be excluded. Even Mr George Austin could not accuse Charles of being that.

But what about coronations? It is sometimes asserted that the King need not be crowned in order to become King. 'The King never dies,' but succeeds immediately on the death of his predecessor as sovereign. This is perfectly true. Edward VIII became King without being crowned. Elizabeth II became Queen on the death of her father in 1952 but was crowned in 1953. Nevertheless, the Act of Settlement requires the King both to take the Coronation Oath and to swear audibly a separate Declaration, last re-enacted in 1910, about being a faithful Protestant and securing the Protestant succession to the Throne.

Charles could conscientiously swear all this stuff. But, if he remarried anyone at all during Diana's lifetime, it is doubtful whether the Church could conscientiously crown him as its head.