Bloodless Coup

i gather from yesterday's Times article (this is today's, but as is typically the case yesterday's story appears to be embedded) that it is a political move. although "prince consort" has been used once before, "princess consort" will be a first-time usage in the history of the english monarchy. i think the biggest thing is that as king charles becomes titular head of the church of england. while the archbishop of canterbury has said charles's and parker-bowles's nuptial is consistent with the church's requirements for remarriage, and the queen-mum has blessed them as well, there's still i take it a concern that the head of the church be a man once divorced and twice married.

Well, I think his church role does have something to do with this. Getting remarried in a religious ceremony is apparently problemtic for some (though that must be a small but vocal minority), but so is having the titular head of the church shacking up with his love muffin. So ... civil marriage it is.

I don't necessarily have any real problem with this, but it does further show how arbitrary things are getting in the hierarchy of British royals theses days (like Prince Andrew being a Duke, but Prince Edward only being an Earl until his father dies). These things happen with these kinds of systems. But it would seem that part of the tourist cache of the whole deal (which is very important to the British economy) is keeping centuries old strict rules - or at least not making it perfectly obvious that the centuries old rules aren't so strict.