The Duke of Windsor's desire to observe Armistice Day at the service held in St. George's Church, in Paris, has led to a most unfortunate incident. It is alleged that the Duke did not attend the service because of reports to the effect that Canon Dart had expressed his disapproval. That appears to be correct, for while the Canon apologizes to the Duke, he also regrets the misunderstanding caused by the unauthorized publication of a statement that he did not want the Duke to attend the service. It is clear then that Canon Dart had expressed such disapproval as was reported, and the Duke of Windsor took the only dignified step possible, by not attending the service. The "Paris Mich" adds very considerably to the story, by a report which it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe is correct,—of the contents of the message the Canon is alleged to have sent to the Duke. It is said that the cleric explained that he had the highest esteem for the Duke's own deeds during the Great War and the profoundest respect for his good works since, but the attitude of the Anglican Church on the question of the marriage of divorced persons admitted of no compromise. If the Duke, he is reported to have added, would come to his church as the Duke of Windsor, and former occupant of the throne, he would have him shown a place of honour, but would refuse to speak to him. It was hoped that when the Duke had passed through the trying ordeal of nearly a year ago he would be allowed to live his life in peace. In certain respects his own procedure has invited a degree of publicity, some of which has not been of the happiest. Nevertheless it was inspired by a very real desire to be of service to the world, a wish which may be thwarted by circumstances not entirely within his control. Asa participant in the Great Wa: desirous of paying tribute to those of his comrades with whom he served, and who paid the supreme price of loyalty, it is clear he should have been allowed to attend the service as any other son of the Church, and the question of showing him to a place of honour need not necessarily have arisen.
With that the position of the Duke in this unhappy affair may be left. There still arises the question of the behaviour of individual priests of the Church of England with regard to the remarriage of divorced persons, which the Canon undoubtedly had in his mind. The attitude of the Church is very clear. It is opposed to such remarriage, and in the main will refuse to assist at such services, though the decision to do so or not is left to the discretion of the individual priest. A great deal may be said for the attitude which the Church has adopted, and some authority quoted for its stand, though the law of divorce as enunciated by its Founder was expressed in few words and these, according to the "Encyclopaedia Britannice," "by no means of agreed interpretation, but it has to be remembered that the Church of England administered its divorce law through the ecclesiastical courts until as late as 1857. The attitude of the Church itself has varied on the subject of subsequent remarriage, for in Lord Northampton's case in the reign of Edward VI pronouncement in favour of remarriage was made, though this was subsequently reversed in Queen Elizabeth's reign by the judgment in the Foljambe case, where it was laid down that a marriage validly contracted could not be dissolved for any cause. It is sufficient then to point out that the Church itself has not been wholly consistent in its attitude on the question, and confusion is all the more confounded by the freedom of decision on the subject of remarriage which still apparently remains in the hands of individual priests.
Canon Dart's action in Paris opens up many unfortunate avenues of speculation. How far is the Church going in this matter? Does it approve of an attitude which extends the disapproval of performing the marriage service for divorced persons to a denial of the services and consolations of the Church to such persons? If it does, it amounts to excommunication pure and simple, not by the official action of the church as a whole, but at the individual discretion of the clerics in authority. That would amount to a pitiless illiberality repugnant to most right thinking people. Most people will prefer to think that now the Church has made its point over the unhappy affair of last year, the matter might be allowed to die a natural death The Church, however, may feel it to be its duty to insist upon the attitude it has adopted, on all and every occasion. If as a whole it does not, it is clear that some individuals are of that opinion, and by their actions they are giving rise to a great deal of anxiety. The remedy seems to be for the Church to pass such legislation definitely establishing the duty of its servants in this matter, ordering them not to perform such services and providing for disciplinary action in the event of such prohibition being defied.
To do so might do some damage to the Church, but at least its stand would be perfectly clear, and the possibility of subsequent criticism removed, for as matters stand at the moment such unhappy incidents as that under review may be repeated, to no particular good of the Church, but to the undoubted exasperation of the many who have to suffer $92 under this very invidious state of affairs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.