Everyone seems to agree that last Saturday’s Royal Wedding of Harry and Meghan was a wonderfully “inclusive” affair, which will help to modernise the monarchy and make it more open to “diversity”.
Meghan’s biracial (her chosen word) heritage emphasised that diversity, as did the uplifting contributions by the Gospel choir, and the energetic American-preacher-style homily by Bishop Michael Curry, eliciting a kind of ecclesiastical “enthusiasm” which isn’t always to English taste.
But here’s a question: if Meghan had been baptised, or raised, as a Catholic, would her position be just as welcome in advancing diversity and inclusion in royal circles? She was, actually, sent to a Catholic school, but whatever her religious background – and it seems somewhat vague – she would have been under some pressure to declare herself an Anglican.
As it happens, she did get herself baptised in the Church of England before the nuptials. Perhaps she sincerely wanted to, but in any case, it is part of the tradition among the Royal Family.
Only eight years ago, when the Irish-Canadian Autumn Kelly joined the royal clan to marry Peter Phillips, Princess Anne’s son, she changed from her childhood Catholic faith to the Church of England. Perhaps she sincerely chose to. Perhaps she is so ecumenical that it didn’t make any difference to her. But perhaps it was considered the correct thing to do, as part of the tradition and the accepted rules of “the Firm”.
When Princess Alexandra’s daughter, Marina Ogilvy, ran off to marry Paul Mowatt, a photographer from Northern Ireland, it was considered something of a royal scandal: the young woman was pregnant before marriage, and her spouse was raised a Catholic. Two black marks! It was then made public that he was “lapsed”, but the Queen still had to give permission for the marriage. A priest-friend has observed that the traditional words “trusted and well-beloved” were omitted from the word “cousin” in the procedure.
Since 2013, heirs to the British throne have been allowed to have a Catholic spouse. And when I see that occurring, I will know that “diversity” has truly arrived at the Court of St James.
…….
Anyone can define what feminism means to them personally, so Meghan is perfectly free to define herself as a feminist.
But the aspiration, made by Meghan herself, and reiterated by the Palace website, towards “equality” is incongruous and even contradictory, coming from a royal duchess.
The entire system of aristocracy and monarchy is constructed on rank, accompanied by elaborate rules of precedence and who must curtsey to whom. You cannot claim “equality” and at the same time enjoy the privileges of class and rank. It’s a contradiction in terms.
Throughout history, aristocratic women, and women who married into the nobility, have been champions of women’s education, entitlement to respect and indeed vocational freedom. Many of the foremost women of history have been queens, empresses, abbesses, and women of learning and ambition from the higher strata of society. In becoming a duchess, Meghan has, in truth, followed a very conventional route to female empowerment – rank.
In 18th-century France, women of rank ran the top social echelons, from the intellectuals’ salons to the appointment of government ministers. Many of these aristocratic women encouraged the progressive ideas that eventually led to the French Revolution, proving that those occupying the higher ground of rank need to be careful not to cut that very ground from underneath them. If genuine “equality” were to be enacted there would be no duchesses at all, royal or not.
…….
Was Jeremy Thorpe really as bad, nasty, deceitful, caddish, cruel and exploitative a man as he is made out to be in the new BBC docu-drama, A Very English Scandal (with Hugh Grant as Thorpe)?
During the 1960s, Thorpe was much liked in media circles. My late friend Bernard Levin worked with him in various TV studios, and thought him clever, funny and engaging – and Bernard’s critical faculties were by no means under-developed.
But now Thorpe emerges as a would-be murderer, a cynic of the deepest die, and an all-round hypocrite and bounder.
Truly, a person’s reputation during their lifetime is no guide whatsoever to the evaluation that will be made after their death.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.