Hypocrite... me?

Here is a copy of a letter I received in response to last week's column, "Charles, Camilla and the so-called Kiss", from one of our readers, Jacquelyn. She titled her email "Tired of Hypocrisy".

The Church of England, to which Charles is someday 'destined' to head, does not recognize divorce. Therefore, as our reader Anthony pointed out, Charles cannot marry Camilla in the church until the man they recognize as her spouse, Andrew Parker-Bowles, dies. What if Andrew Parker-Bowles outlives both of them? Jacquelyn made a particular point about Charles being a single man whom I continue to describe as being in an adulteress relationship. Clearly, by the Church of England standards, he still is.

Now, I'm sure half of you are saying that I am passing moral judgment and being a hypocrite. I'll tell you why I don't believe that's true. At one time I lived in a condominium complex. When I moved in I was handed a fat manual outlining all the laws, which I carefully placed in a file without so much as flipping through it. One day upon returning from the beach, I hung a wet, sandy towel over the railing of my balcony to dry. A short time later, a board member knocked on my door to tell me that hanging anything over the railing was an infraction of rule 187-B. She was correct. I apologized and took the towel down. Did I at the time or to this day believe that the woman who knocked on my door to alert me of my infraction was passing a moral judgment? No. She was pointing out that there were rules and I wasn't following them. All societies have rules. It is our choice to live by them or join another society. It's called free will.

Had I refused to remove the towel from the balcony because I didn't see anything wrong with the fact that it was hanging there, despite having agreed to live by the rules of the Condominium Association, do you think that further action would have been taken? You bet it would have. It could have been in the form of a letter from the Board. If I'd chosen to ignore that it might be in the form of a letter from the Association's attorney. If I'd continued to disobey the rule, they may have physically removed the towel from the railing deeming it part of the property maintained by the funds of the Association. Whether I felt there was no harm in hanging a towel outside or not would have no bearing on the rules or their interpretation. Had I felt strongly about hanging things over the balcony railing, I could have opted to find a new place to live - making sure it did not have a similar rule.

The point I wish to make with Charles is that he, as his Great-Uncle David before him, has a choice. As King Edward VIII, Great-Uncle David's choice of a wife, the twice divorced Wallis Simpson, was not approved by the Church of England or by Stanley Baldwin the Prime Minister. In his autobiography, "A King's Story: The Memoirs of the Duke of Windsor", David states that he thought of his country when he chose to abdicate. He said that he found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility without the support of the woman he loved. He knew that once he had asked for Parliament's opinion if he did not take it the government would disband. He saw the hardship this would cause the people and passed the mantle of responsibility over to his brother whom he said had the blessing of a loving family. The thing that makes this story romantic is that David did not expect his church and country to rewrite the rules for him; he chose to leave the society, to give up his role as sovereign, in order to be with the woman he loved.

In December 1936 when Edward VIII abdicated, he was obviously King. As a matter of fact he was King and Emperor. As King, he could have changed the rules as Henry VIII before him did. Again, he chose not to. He chose to respect the society, which he also mentioned in his abdication speech. "Bred in the constitutional tradition by my father, I should never have allowed any such issue to arise.*" Here is Edward VIII telling us he knows the rules, he is unable to follow them, he's out of the game. This I respect.

King Edward VIII also tells us in his memoirs that he could not, in good conscience, swear to the vows he would take during his Coronation regarding defending the faith. Charles, on the other hand, has said that he doesn't necessarily see himself as 'Defender of the Faith' but rather as "Defender of Faith". Is there a 'faith' he thinks will want to be defended by him?

Unlike Edward VIII, Charles, as Prince of Wales, is not the sovereign. Is he waiting until he is to change the rules? If so, I would classify his actions as an abuse of power and the ultimate act of selfishness for as part of that service he would be expected to swear the following - that his great-uncle in good conscience could not - before God and all: 

With regard to Diana and her acts of adultery, I do not condone them for the same reasons stated above. I do understand that the James Hewitt thing may have been started out of a combination of loneliness and spite or an effort to make her husband jealous. She did give him up after recognizing it was not the cure for what was ailing her or her marriage. I do not understand what drove her to the others; especially after realizing her actions were a detriment. Her repentance may have come in the form of agreeing to a divorce, the thing she abhorred most since childhood; the thing that sealed her fate - she would never be Queen.

Sufficed to say, Diana, Princess of Wales, was content to be a "Queen in People's Hearts". Charles, on the other hand, continues to believe that the throne is his God given right along with seeking his inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness - as guaranteed in the American Declaration of Independence. We find these truths to be self evident that his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, has pledged her whole life to duty and the service of her subjects the world over without ever wavering in her conviction; that his former wife, Diana, stepped down from her position in 'the firm' when she realized she couldn't live within its constraints and dedicated herself to furthering humanitarian causes; and that Charles seems to devote his life to selfishly trying to change the perception of his relationship with Mrs. Parker-Bowles - or the laws that define it - in between his official appearances. Taking out all 'moral' judgments, it is what it is.

* From the Abdication Speech of Edward VIII 
Text in Full is available on this web site: http://www.etoile.co.uk/Rxmas.html

Is it what it is? I'll be looking forward to your feedback for the next 'Speakers Corner' on Sunday!

All the best,