An Answerbank Merchandising Opportunity
ChatterBank1 min ago
Cosmo Gordon Lang, the devil’s disciple?
21 Answers
I saw the programme on TV about the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s machinations to get king Edward to abdicate simply because he didn’t like him. Considering that the Church of England’s pact with the state puts it top of the hierarchy of UK religions and makes the reigning king head of the Church of England and that the Archbishop of Canterbury must have sworn an oath of loyalty, don’t his actions to undermine the king make him one of the most traitorous, despicable and least christian churchmen we have ever had?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Father-Ted. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
On the contrary. I have not seen this programme but I am well versed in the history of the time. Cosmo Lang, as a high churchman, fully recognised the link between the C of E and the Sovereign. It was only when Edward VIII made it clear that he wanted to put Wallis Simpson ahead of his duties as King that Lang and many others, decided he would have to go. Many influential figures at the time fought long and hard to persuade the King to another mindset, not least the Prime Minister Baldwin and his mother, the Dowager Queen Mary, but to no avail. The only figure undeserving of any sympathy in this whole sorry saga is King Edward himself. Indeed, the great lyricist and poet, Noel Coward, proposed that a statue of Wallis Simpson be erected in every town of England, for she had single-handedly saved the country from the reign of Edward VIII.
I say, steady on old chap !
Why didn't he like him? Well, for one thing, the playboy prince didn't fit what Lang thought the King and Emperor should be and was not his type at all. Lang was a reactionary bound by what he thought proper, in an age marked by 'correct' standards rather different from ours, an age when divorced people weren't allowed in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. It's difficult to put ourselves back in those times and accept that way of thinking.
His oath of loyalty was, to him, of loyalty to the monarchy rather more than to someone whom he was convinced was not fit to be its representative. That he was a devious individual, and 'traitorous', doesn't mean he wasn't sincere and well-meaning.
Mind, had the King stayed King, it's not certain that he would have proved, with his consort, a better monarch than his successor, with his wife, proved to be.
Why didn't he like him? Well, for one thing, the playboy prince didn't fit what Lang thought the King and Emperor should be and was not his type at all. Lang was a reactionary bound by what he thought proper, in an age marked by 'correct' standards rather different from ours, an age when divorced people weren't allowed in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. It's difficult to put ourselves back in those times and accept that way of thinking.
His oath of loyalty was, to him, of loyalty to the monarchy rather more than to someone whom he was convinced was not fit to be its representative. That he was a devious individual, and 'traitorous', doesn't mean he wasn't sincere and well-meaning.
Mind, had the King stayed King, it's not certain that he would have proved, with his consort, a better monarch than his successor, with his wife, proved to be.
Sorry, jno, but a person does not become king or queen at his or her coronation but upon his or her accession to the throne. The lack of a coronation in no way invalidates the legitimacy of the successor to the crown. All Acts of Parliament between 6th Feb 1952 and 2nd June 1953 are signed Elizabeth R. The coronation is a religious and symbolic ceremony, not a legal requirement.
The office of Archbishop of Canterbury is not exactly the safest position to occupy in the hierarchy of our country. Over the past 1000 years at least four holders of that office have suffered violent deaths, two illegally (Thomas Becket, 1170 and Simon Sudbury, 1381) and two at the hands of the state executioner (Thomas Cranmer, 1556 and William Laud, 1645).
The Archbishop of Canterbury takes the Oath of Allegiance to the present monarch, on appointment, and does so again at the start of each new Parliament. So this particular one may have done so more than once; he would certainly be called upon to do so when the previous King died and Edward VIII became the new King at that moment. He had enough time for that to be done; it's not as though the new King had died before it could be.
The oath is taken once only, to the King and his successors, which covers everything. The oath also contains provisos, so that if the monarch defaults on his coronation oath then those who have sworn the oath of loyalty are absolved from it. One of the reasons why it took so long after the Reformation for the Roman Catholic religion to be legally re-established in the UK was the refusal of George III to allow it on the the grounds that it contradicted the oath he took at his coronation to uphold the protestant religion, an oath that he took very seriously.
I don't think that being a commoner was an issue, though being divorced certainly was. The last princess of royal blood to marry into the British royal family was Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark who married Prince George, Duke of Kent, in 1934, mother of the present duke, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra. So conscious was she of her royal status that she used to sneer at the Duchess of Gloucester (Princess Alice, wife of Prince Henry, the longest ever living member of the royal family) and the Duchess of York (later Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mother), describing them as "those common little Scottish girls"
In todays modern society, with no moral values, nothing seems to matter anymore, when we have two adulterers in the form of Charles And Camilla who want to be King and Queen, and also heads of the anglican church,are we sure that we can't just ship them off to bermuda, and ask William to be our next Monarch
Ah, Dee M See, a voice for the past ! Yes, times change, and we in them. Quite an advance to have an adulterer, whose consort was his mistress, on the throne, instead of one of the several who had a wife on acceding, but had mistresses continually, or successively, afterwards. Bit of a nice distinction, but the next one will be breaking with historic precedent, which is, of course, to be rightly abhorred.
Some of you seem to be missing the OP's point. Cosmo Lang was disloyal to the head of his church, whether his reasons were valid or not. He put his opinion above his oath of loyalty and the traditions of the church and the succession to the throne. If you are going to be traditional and reactionary at least be consistent.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.