I'm really still in shock that she was not allowed to marry the man she loved because the Church of England, founded solely so that a self-indulgent king could divorce and remarry any number of times he saw fit, thought divorce was unbecoming of a royal. I realize, yes, that the Church of England probably takes great pains to not remind people of its raison d'être and clothes its utter lack of meaning with the trappings of an outward manifestation of something approaching Christianity, but we all know the truth. The Church of England is an attenuated form of virtue signaling masquerading as a faith, founded on a lie and a divorce (followed by two homicides, an annulment and then a whole lot of vicious religious persecution).
There is nothing to add to this.
The amusing thing is how many of QE2's family ended up causing extramarital scandals in spite of all the fussing about divorces and suitability when they were getting married. It's not like there is any practical value to these marriages anyway. If World War One should have taught the aristocrat enthusiasts anything, it would have been that. The whole Willy-Nicky thing, involving two monarchs with more influence over their governments than the House of Windsor ever had, showed that marriages of state no longer had any practical value.
I doubt most of these scandals would really have been prevented by the royals choosing their own spouses, but at least with the coercive element removed, adolescent rebellion wouldn't be a factor. And yes, I'd still call it adolescent, even if they were in their 40s or whenever. The religious aspect was just an excuse for a bunch of useless bureaucrats to exercise what little power they retained in a world that left them behind. And it's the same with national churches like the Church of England. I love that "Yes, Prime Minister" bit where the bureaucrats tell the PM that while the Queen is essential to the Church, God isn't, so much. Yeah, no shit. They turned their backs on the one to serve the other, and now, if they relinquish their grip on the only thing they have left, the Crown, they're nothing. So they try to use moralistic excuses to retain that control, regardless of the hypocrisy. Why not simply give Peter Townsend an annulment? Given that he was the victim in his divorce, I'd imagine the grounds for nullification could not be as specious as those granted to Henry so he could leave a woman with whom his brother MIGHT have had sex, for one with whose sister he DEFINITELY had sex.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
