All who truly have the good of this nation at heart, and especially those who fear God in the land, must surely view with concern the conduct of the Prince of Wales, the first in line of succession to the British throne. The Heir-apparent is well aware of the provisions of the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement: “Whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queen marrying a Papist . . . Every person who is or shall be reconciled to, or shall have communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown or Government of this Realm and Ireland; and in every such case the people of these Realms shall be and are hereby released of their allegiance.” (Act. 1, William and Mary, cap. 2, sec. ii., 1689). He is, also, familiar with the terms of the Accession Declaration and the Coronation Oath: “I do solemnly, and in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my power, according to law.” His familiarity with these enactments is not in question; it is his attitude towards them that causes concern.
It is clearly evident from what one learns from the public press and especially from what one reads in a recent semi-official biography (“The Prince of Wales” by Jonathan Dimbleby) that, as things stand at present, the Heir-apparent does not measure up to being “a faithful Protestant” and to all appearances would not be prepared to take the Coronation Oath in its present form. That is a matter of real concern to loyal Protestant subjects within the United Kingdom. But it is not only the Prince’s attitude to these constitutional matters that causes concern; there are, also, revelations concerning his personal life and conduct which have to taken into consideration.
It is now public knowledge that he is an adulterer and far from acknowledging his conduct as sinful, he, in making it so widely known, appears to glorying in his shame. “He that ruleth over men”, the Bible tells us, “must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” By that standard, the Prince of Wales, if he were King and still holding the views he espouses at present, would surely be found wanting. His conduct is reminiscent of that of the debauched and perfidious Stuart kings, the last of whom was flung off the British throne in 1688. This was, we believe, in answer to the prayers of the godly among whom was that illustrious soldier and martyr for Christ, Richard Cameron. Preaching somewhere on the moor between the shires of Ayr and Lanark, he paused in the middle of his sermon and we are told that “in the pause he prayed for the restoration of the Jews, for the fall of Antichrist, and for the hastening of the hour when the Stuarts should be swept from the throne.” He did not live to see that prayer answered but others were spared to see the last of these petitions wonderfully answered when, in 1688, the secret papist James II was disowned by the British nation. They also saw the very principles set forth so fearlessly in the Sanquhar Declaration, and for which Cameron and a multitude of others died, embodied in the legislation enacted at the Glorious Revolution. It is that legislation that is now being flouted by the Prince of Wales.
We are indebted to Mr John MacLeod, the freelance journalist, for drawing our attention to the fact that there were certain references to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in the forementioned, recently published, biography of the Prince of Wales. Mr Dimbleby was granted full access to the Prince’s private papers and among them he came across certain documents in which he took a great deal of interest and to which he seemed to attach considerable importance. They were letters sent to the Prince by our Church’s Religion and Morals Committee and by our Synod in 1985.
The background to the exchange of letters was connected with the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to Rome in 1985 when the Prince indicated that he proposed to have an audience with the Pope and, more than that, attend the Pope’s “domestic eucharist” within the precincts of the papal private chapel in the heart of the Vatican. These proposals, especially the latter, once they became known, stirred up the opposition of Protestant Churches and other bodies who were concerned over the matter and aware of the serious implications of such actions on the part of the heir to the British throne. The biography reveals that there was much scheming and plotting behind the scenes in order to facilitate the attendance of the Prince at the papal private mass and the faithless and perfidious conduct of both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in encouraging His Royal Highness to attend the idolatrous service is here laid bare.
By 1985, the Prince’s biographer tells us, “relations between the Vatican and Lambeth Palace were warmer than ever. In this climate, the Prince wanted to use his visit to Italy to make a further gesture of reconciliation towards Rome. The Home Office were consulted on the constitutional implication of such a “gesture” and, of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury who favoured a ‘special service’ in St Peter’s to celebrate what would have been the first formal act of reconciliation between the papacy and the royal family since the excommunication of Henry VIII.” This proposal was not accepted as it was thought that “for the Prince to ‘participate’ in a Roman Catholic service would be taken to imply his acceptance of the authority of Rome, while merely to ‘attend’ such a service might seem patronising to the Vatican. Instead, it was agreed that the Prince and princess should attend the Pope’s domestic eucharist in his private chapel. As the Prince would not partake of communion, there would be no breach of his constitutional position as Supreme-governor designate; only ‘the extreme minority’ who rejected the Pope’s spiritual and ecclesiastical position could dissent. Likewise, recognising the force of the Home Office reservations about his original preference, the Archbishop declared that by attending a private mass at the Vatican, the Prince would be far more effective than ‘any number of theoretical statements by ecclesiastics’ in moving the Pope more firmly in favour of ecumenicism. Moreover, by thus confronting His Holiness ‘with Anglican piety and commitment at the highest level’, the Prince would cause scandal in Britain only to ‘a few on the lunatic fringe’. Crucially, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland also gave his personal blessing to the project.”
We are told that “the proposal was duly conveyed to the Vatican, where it was favourably received. Soon afterwards it received the Pope’s blessing and the detailed planning for the private mass was put in hand. As part of this process the decision was taken early in April to impose a news ‘blackout’ on the occasion, which would be lifted only retrospectively. A press statement was even prepared for after the service which was designed to emphasise that the royal couple had attended the papal mass ‘without receiving communion’.”
The biographer continues: “In the absence of any better explanation for this elaborate curtain of secrecy, it may be presumed that the intention had been to forestall a public fracas with ‘the lunatic fringe’. A letter to the Prince from Secretary of the Religion and Morals Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland condemning his planned audience with the Pope (which had been announced before the proposal for the private mass had been finalised) gives some idea of the wrath which lurked in some evangelical breasts:
We would respectfully remind Your Royal Highness that the Pope of Rome was identified by our Reformers, and is still identified as the ‘man of sin’ revealed in Scripture (II Thessalonians, chapter 2, verses 3 and 4), and that history has confirmed that his emissaries have been responsible for the bloodshed of many in the name of Christianity, of which, he remains unrepentant, at least publicly . . . We affirm that, in our opinion, it is quite unnecessary for Your Royal Highness to visit the Pope of Rome who seeks to deprive us of the liberty of the Gospel . . . we must advise Your Royal Highness against such a proposed visit, against which, if our plea is ineffectual, we most vehemently protest.
“At this juncture,” we read on, “only two weeks before the celebration of the secret mass which had been now fixed for the early morning of 30 April (the day after the royal audience with the Pope), the entire plan was suddenly scuppered, to the acute embarrassment of all involved. As this débâcle was reported in The Times’ Diary on 16 April, ‘A request by Prince Charles to attend a papal mass in the Vatican has been refused after a top level decision taken in the past 24 hours, involving Buckingham Palace, Church leaders and the diplomatic corps.’ The unnamed source for this carefully placed snippet was the Queen’s press office, which had contrived this pre-emptive strike to limit the damage that a less economical version of the truth would have been bound to cause. Guided by the Palace, The Times’ columnist wrote, ‘Besides the fear of protests from Protestant loyalists, I am told objections were raised at the weekend within the hierarchy of the Church of Scotland, although the Moderator, the Right Revd John Paterson is understood to have given the prince his personal blessing. I am told the agreement of the Archbishop of Canterbury was also given.’
In the weekend press, there had been some exceptionally hazy speculation about the royal couple sharing in an act of worship with the Pope. It is quite possible, therefore, that at this stage some members of the Church of Scotland did indeed voice objections to the support given by their Moderator for the Prince’s initiative. However, even if these doubts had reached the ears of the Palace, they could not have been decisive in the cancellation of the mass. As Paterson himself later insisted, the Church of Scotland neither objected nor applied pressure on the Palace. The first he had learnt of the alleged opposition of his Church was in The Times’ report which the Palace had instigated.
What Buckingham Palace had failed to tell The Times’ diarist was that, until the very last moment, the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Philip Moore, had himself not been aware of the private mass. Thus in a serious breach of protocol, the issue had not been raised with the Queen. As a result, with only a fortnight to go, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England had been given no opportunity fully to consider the constitutional implications of her son’s attendance at the Pope’s mass. In any case, in the days before The Times reported the Palace version of why the mass had been cancelled, the Queen had a long meeting with her son. Whether or not the Prince was ‘indignant’ with his mother, as the press subsequently reported, is a matter of conjecture. The outcome is not. On 15 April, a message was relayed from the Prince’s office to the Holy See: the Prince would not after all attend the mass on which he had set his heart so many months before.
There followed an exercise in damage limitation in which the Prince’s Private Secretary even tried to conceal the fact that attendance at a papal mass had ever been considered and his Press Secretary went so far as to insist “that the mass had only been cancelled because it had become impossible to fit it into the schedule”. This was, of course, so blatantly untrue that, we are told, no one believed it. The Vatican, however, was — no doubt for its own reasons — more forthcoming. Officials there were prepared to tell “any journalist who cared to listen that, but for a last-minute cancellation, the Prince would have taken part in an historic act of reconciliation with the Church of Rome.” It was also made known in Rome that “the Queen’s decisive opinion that a mass would be ‘inopportune’ had been relayed to the British ambassador to the Holy See, Sir Mark Heath. He was reported to have been ‘surprised and embarrassed by the news’ — as well he might have been, given his intimate involvement in the detailed preparations for the event.”
The controversy provoked by the cancellation of the mass was sustained and predictable. Prominent Catholics mourned a missed opportunity, Revd Ian Paisley thundered that any ‘communion’ between the throne and the See of Rome would be a defiance of the law, and the Archbishop of York, Dr John Habgood, soothingly contradicted him. A measure of the Prince’s own feelings about the cancellation may be gleaned from the response to a letter which arrived some weeks later from the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Revd John MacLeod. Informing the Prince that the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29, Section 2, says the mass is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice . . ., and that ‘reconciliation to the see of Rome could jeopardise Your Royal Highness’ right to succession’, MacLeod vouchsafed on behalf of his Synod that the Prince was being ‘ill-advised in spiritual matters by some who have departed from the true teaching of the inspired, infallible and inerrant way(sic) of God.’
The Prince, we are informed, “was moved to draft a reply to this diatribe in forthright language. Reminding MacLeod that the proposed service had only been countenanced after close consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Home Office, he wrote, ‘I would like to ask by what divine grace you have decided you have the monopoly of truth in this matter?’ Castigating ‘bigotry and prejudice in all its forms’, he informed MacLeod that these failings were ‘the main cause of so much human suffering and misery’. The letter was not despatched. A note on the typed draft from a member of his staff instructed, ‘On no account is this letter to be sent.’ Instead, the Prince was prevailed upon to allow his private secretary to respond on his behalf in a noncommittal reply rather less calculated to fan the flames of religious intolerance.”
The full text of the Synod’s letter described in the foregoing extract as a “diatribe” and to which the Prince of Wales took such exception was as follows:
Your Royal Highness,
It was with anguish and dismay that our Synod learned of Your Royal Highness’ request and intention to attend a private mass with the Pope of Rome, together with the secrecy surrounding it. It was with a measure of relief that we heard of the cancellation of this event.
We would respectfully remind Your Royal Highness that the noble Protestant Reformers of the Church of England, of which Church Your Royal Highness is a member, described the mass as a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit (The Articles of Religion, No. 31), while the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29, Section 2, says the mass “is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.”
We number ourselves among Her Majesty the Queen’s most loyal servants. We endeavour by our speech, lives and prayers to uphold Her Majesty the Queen and the Protestant Throne which she occupies. It shocks and disappoints us that the Heir-apparent to the Throne should consider so compromising Her Majesty the Queen, who by the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 is pledged not to be “reconciled to or . . . hold communion with the see or Church of Rome” without relinquishing that Protestant Throne.
It gives us no pleasure to write in such terms to Your Royal Highness, but as duty bound to the Lord Jesus Christ, to our own consciences, and to your Royal Highness’ spiritual and temporal well-being, we understand that as the Heir-apparent to the Protestant Throne of Britain, such reconciliation to the see of Rome could jeopardise Your Royal Highness’ right to succession and would be inconsistent with the Oath, upon Your anticipated accession, to preserve the Protestant and Presbyterian Religion of the Church of Scotland, as an integral part of the Treaty of Union 1707.
In view of the serious and precarious position, brought about by ecumenical activities, to our Protestant Throne, we feel duty-bound to speak plainly to Your Royal Highness before a situation arises relative to the Protestant Constitution, which is irreversible. We feel that Your Royal Highness is being ill-advised in spiritual matters by some who have departed from the true teaching of the inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God. The Lord says of those who reject His Word, “Lo, they have rejected the Word of the Lord: and what wisdom is in them?” (Jeremiah, Chapter 8, verse 9).
We pray God that Your Royal Highness will be brought to a full appreciation of the Protestant faith as a true exposition of “the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (II Timothy, Chapter 3, verse 9).
Readers may judge for themselves whether or not this should be classified as a diatribe. In reminding the Prince of Wales that there are legal enactments in place which sets out what the British Monarchy’s relationship and attitude to the Church of Rome ought to be, the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is consigned to “the lunatic fringe”! When we, as loyal subjects and lovers of our country, express a view which is consistent with what is written of the British Constitution, His Royal Highness sees fit to dismiss it as, “bigotry and prejudice” and refers to our “failings” as being the cause of “human suffering and misery”. Had we been given the opportunity we would have repudiated this but that courtesy was not extended to us. We might have taken the opportunity of reminding His Royal Highness that many young men belonging to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland sacrificed their lives in two World Wars in defence of King and Country. We have no desire to be disrespectful to the Prince of Wales but we think that once the decision was taken not to send the letter, it should have been destroyed and not left to the perusal of all and sundry who, from time to time, gain access to the Prince’s private papers.
As to his audience with the Pope, the Prince himself tells us of his journey into the inner recesses of the Vatican. “As we were swept through archway after archway and courtyard after courtyard it was only too obvious that everything was designed to make the visitor feel smaller and smaller and less and less significant as he approached the ultimate presence.” His biographer goes on to tell us that after being obliged to wait for a few minutes in an ante-chamber, the Prince and Princess were then “conducted along vast corridors and through great reception rooms, dramatically decorated by huge frescos depicting every kind of biblical and mythological catastrophe, until they finally reached the presence of His Holiness.” After being taken into an enormous high-ceilinged room the Pope, having greeted them, seated himself at a desk situated at one end while his visitors were placed in two chairs before him. The Prince noted in his diary: “We then talked about unity between the different branches of the Christian faith, especially the Anglican, and I raised the problem of the 1896 bull which effectively declared the Anglican orders null and void. He thought that was past history. He also said he thought the Anglican Church was in fact closer to the Catholics than to the Orthodox at this present time.”
Dimbleby tells us that “after an audience of some forty minutes, the Prince asked the Pope to bless them — ‘which he did very briefly by making the sign of the cross over us’.” And this is the account we have of the Prince’s explanation of his non-appearance at the private mass — “Earlier in their forty-minute audience, the Prince broached a delicate matter which had embarrassed relations between the Vatican and the Palace: ‘I apologised to him for the confusion over our possible attendance at his private chapel the following morning and said how much I admired the spiritual leadership he so clearly provided in such a difficult and uncertain world’.” How strong is that delusion to which the Prince is given over if he really believes that! It does not surprise us that one result of the Pope’s “blessing” has been the break-up of the marriage of those who so foolhardily sought it.
It appears to us that the Prince, following, we fear, in the footsteps of the Stuart kings, and under the delusion that the paganised, Antichristian religion of Rome is genuine Christianity, is determined to do his utmost to bridge the “destructive gulf” between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. We are expressly informed that “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.” We shall be happy to wear that label for we believe that it carries with it the honour of bearing “the reproach of Christ” and if we have His approbation then it matters little what the Prince of Wales thinks of us.