Has the media ever liked any archbishop?

Anyone who thinks Rowan Williams's recent controversies raise questions about the Archbishop's ability to perform in the media age might like to consider that his predecessors also came in for a bit of criticism. Here are Robert Runcie and George Carey being lampooned in a Spitting Image sketch from YouTube:

And Rowan Williams hasn't fared much better at the hands of satirists:

Not much has changed has it? Why not focus on his ability to be a spiritual leader rather than on whether or not he can satisfy tabloid journalists or escape satirists?

Archbishop says "fight sin, not each other" - shock or not

There are times when one could be mistaken for thinking that the Second Coming has occurred, that all sin across this world has been swept aside and all the great problems facing humanity today have been rent asunder. Certainly the way some in the Anglican Communion have obsessed over particular matters in recent years leads one to wonder if they have fallen under this delusion.

So for once I am grateful to the Archbishop of York (normally I am sceptical about whether York should even have an Archbishop) for speaking out on this. (BBC News: Church 'fails' to spread message) Amongst his wise words:

The Church has not been very good at clearly spelling out what the message of Jesus is about...
It is a corporate failure of the Church, not actually doing the ministry of Jesus Christ out in the world.
All of us as members of the body of Christ need to do more.
What we should be about is telling people that God in Jesus has come in a human form, died, rose again and his presence, in terms of the spirit, actually transforms lives.
...
The trouble you have got is that there is a desire for self-fulfilment.
Unfortunately, as we see it in this country, it turns out to turn into self-assertiveness and very little self-examination and we end up with a culture which is very cynical, blaming somebody else, constantly endeavouring to put other people down.

Let's hope that the rest of the Church listens and starts focusing on the real matters, not finding reasons for people to not preach the Word.

Can a monarch be vetoed?

Today is the seventieth anniversary of the Abdication of Edward VIII (unless you're in the Republic of Ireland, where it's tomorrow!). It was just the latest in a long line of actions that have shown that the monarchy can be flexible and overcome particularly problematic individuals that dates back to at least King Stephen and also includes King John, Henry IV, Henry VII, William III and Mary II and George I. The monarchy rapidly recovered (not least because of George VI's stand during the war) and it's only recently that the issues of the Abdication have become relevant once more.

It's often said that one of the basic points of a monarchy is that there is no choice whatsoever about the succession. But this overlooks a vast amount of precedent of both individuals and lines being passed over. Were one to follow a notion of strict male preference primogentiure then our current monarch would not be Elizabeth II but Francis II. Time and again a way has been found around a problematic individual, allowing the system on monarchy to survive.

Contrast this with France in the nineteenth century, where it wound up with a restoration putting on the throne die hards like Charles X. A legitimist succession to the Orleanist line (and ignore the Carlist line, as most legitimists did) before 1830 may have given the monarchy the stability and broader support it needed to survive, but ultimately the monarchists wound up supporting Henri, comte de Chambord, who made impossible conditions for taking the throne and ultimately wound up being the one man who made a France a permanent republic.

I rather doubt that Prince Charles will wind up being the UK's come de Chambord. But it's hard to deny that his accession is creating uncertainty. His marriage to Camilla is exactly what his great uncle was officially forced to give up the throne for (and wasn't "Duchess of Cornwall" precisely the title proposed for a non-Queen Wallis?). Now social attitudes have changed a lot in seventy years but the prospect of a Head of the Church of England being married to a divorcee is one that many find hard to accept. Traditionally the monarchy and the Established Church have reinforced one another. Could we see one bring the other down? And which?

Then there's the issue of public popularity. Whilst the newspapers seem to have restrained themselves in recent years in reporting the "Royal Soap Opera" (give or take the Daily Express obsession with Diana) the media does still retain the ability to break a public figure's credibility. Charles has fought a long battle for media, and thus public, approval and in many ways its not over yet. Can he successfully reign if he's constantly having to work like a politician to maintain popularity, in a job that is defined as not open to politicians?

But equally a lot of this would apply to William (although he also has to navigate the problems that the title "King William" will bring). A public debate and choice of "Charles or William" amounts to a limited choice republic and it would be hard to resist the logical consequence. Will the monarchy be able to weather a second storm? And what will happen to the Church of England?