Jonathan Dimbleby’s authorised biography of the Prince of Wales informs us that, while he is very broadminded when it comes to accepting the validity of non-Christian religions, “he has long deplored the schisms within the Christian Church and has been scathing about the exclusive forms of evangelism represented by Protestant sects like the Free Presbyterians”. (1) In his view, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism are all equally acceptable and the title “Defender of the Faith” ought, in his own words, to be defined as the “Defender of the Divine in existence, the pattern of the Divine which is, I think, in all of us but which, because we are human beings, can be expressed in so many different ways”. (2) Holding this view, which savours so strongly of Eastern mysticism, it is no surprise to find it stated that the Prince “finds himself at ease walking between and within all those religions in addition to being a practising Christian”. In embracing these views, so inimical to “the faith once delivered to the saints” and for which we are to contend earnestly, he has, in our view, no right to be called a Christian at all! Accordingly, it ought to be a matter of great concern to all faithful Protestant subjects that the heir to the British throne has made it so very clear that, in reference to the reigning Sovereign’s title “Defender of the Faith”, “he personally would rather see it as Defender of Faith, not the Faith”.
As things are at the moment, the words and actions of the Prince of Wales plainly indicate that, if he were ever to ascend the throne, he could not honestly declare himself to be a “faithful Protestant” nor subscribe to the Bill of Rights which forbids the British monarch to have any communion with the see of Rome. The coronation engagements under which Queen Elizabeth II came in 1953 are now largely forgotten and it would appear that in recent times she has not herself been as mindful of them as we would expect and desire. The fiftieth anniversary of her coronation is hardly being mentioned by the media, and we suspect that the reason is that those concerned did not wish to bring back to public attention the form and nature of these solemn engagements.
It has, however, to be said that in 1985 our Queen acted firmly and constitutionally when she forbad the Prince of Wales to attend a secret papal mass in the Vatican. At the time, he was reported as being highly indignant that he and Princess Diana could not join the Pope in this act of idolatrous worship, described in the Articles of the Church of England (of which he was a member and to whose headship he was heir) as “a dangerous deceit and a blasphemous fable”. It is a matter of history that the relationship between the Prince and the late Princess of Wales rapidly deteriorated after they foolhardily sought and received the Papal “blessing”. The Prince himself placed it on record that this was conveyed by the Pope making the sign of the cross over them. Alas, it does not yet seem to have dawned on the Prince that his action was dishonouring to Christ the true “Prince of the kings of the earth” and that to despise Him would lead, as the Bible informs us, to the Prince of Wales himself becoming “lightly esteemed”. He has previously admitted that he was guilty of adultery, and now the recently-published Peat Report which, according to the press, speaks of “squalid dealings, bungles and evasions” in his household has, it is said, brought “the public image of the royals” to “a new low”. As loyal subjects and firm supporters of the monarchy, we find this very sad and, indeed, alarming.
That the Prince remains in spiritual darkness is evident from his latest action in appointing (as reported in The Times, 28/02/03) “a practising Roman Catholic for the first time in a senior position”. More amazing is the fact that this Romanist has been put “in charge of religious matters at St James’s Palace, along with education, health and the elderly”. In view of the nefarious activities of the Papacy over the centuries and particularly on account of what we find on record in the history of our own Protestant land, we have reason to believe that here we have another example of age-old Jesuit intrigue and infiltration bearing fruit. Has the House of Windsor forgotten its own history? Would Prince Charles be the heir to the British throne if his forebears had not opposed the very powers of darkness with which he is now so prepared to consort?
In view of what happened in New York on 11 September 2001 and the subsequent on-going murderous activities of terrorists with Islamic backgrounds who justify themselves by appealing to Koranic teaching, we wonder if the Prince of Wales has changed his mind on Islam. Is he still prepared to heap praise on Islamic culture, which he has described as having played a great part in the creation of modern Europe? In a speech delivered in 1993, he said that “it was part of our inheritance, not a thing apart. More than this, Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost. At the heart of Islam is its preservation of an integral view of the universe. Islam – like Buddhism and Hinduism – refuses to separate man and nature, religion and science, mind and matter, and has preserved a metaphysical and unified view of ourselves and the world around us.”
True Christianity, if only the Prince of Wales realised it, has not lost anything. Its doctrines – founded on the inspired and inerrant Word of the true and living God – are far removed from what is proclaimed in mosques. This was recently demonstrated beyond doubt in the Finsbury Mosque in London, which had become, under a fanatical Muslim cleric, “a hotbed of extreme fundamentalist Islam and opposition to Britain, the US and non-Muslims”. Another notorious Muslim cleric has been imprisoned as a result of engaging in activities which were linked to al-Qaeda terrorism; he had openly called for “the death of non-believers, Americans, Jews and Hindus”. He also claimed that he was only “interpreting and updating the words of the Koran”. So much then for the Islamic culture which the Prince eulogised and commended to his audience.
As a result of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland’s protest against the Prince’s proposed attendance at a Vatican mass, he thought it apt to classify it as belonging to the “lunatic fringe”. We, on our part, desiring to give honour to those to whom honour is due, will continue to pray that the Lord would open the eyes of the Prince of Wales and thus turn him from darkness to light, bring him from the power of Satan to God, that he may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified through faith in Christ (Acts 26:18).
1. Jonathan Dimbleby, The Prince of Wales, p527.
2. Ibid, p528.