So Prince William is a good Anglican after all. He has told the Times, through an aide, of his commitment to the Church, on the eve of attending the installation of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. But does he consider himself a Christian believer? The statement awkwardly dances around that question. It leaves the impression that he does not really consider himself a Christian, but knows that he must keep this semi-veiled.
We then hear that ‘his relationship with the Church will “evolve” from that of previous monarchs, whose strong faith underpinned their reigns.’
The statement is difficult to analyse because the words are not quite his. They come from an aide; he presumably signed them off, but there is an air of vagueness and deniability in such a not-quite-statement. Absurdly, the aide says that this statement ought to clear up any muddle, ‘draw a clear line in the sand’ concerning his religious commitment.
The article begins thus: ‘The Prince of Wales has revealed his “quiet faith” and “commitment to the Church of England”, in a significant move redefining his role as future King and supreme governor.’ But the phrase ‘quiet faith’ is not repeated in a full quote later on. Is it the aide’s impression that he has a ‘quiet faith’, or is the phrase William’s?
The aide ‘clarifies’ thus: “His feeling is, ‘I might not be at church every day but I believe in it, I want to support it and this is an important aspect of my role and the next role and I will take it very seriously, in my own way’.” Believe in what? The Church, as a cultural good thing? Or the religion?
We then hear – in the words of the Times reporter – that ‘his relationship with the Church will “evolve” from that of previous monarchs, whose strong faith underpinned their reigns.’ The muddle increases: is this a quote from the aide, or is just the word ‘evolve’ a quote? It seems to contrast William’s position with the ‘strong faith’ of previous monarchs – which seems to mean that he does not really claim to have Christian faith.
A further ‘clarification’: “Those who know him well recognise that his connection to the Church, and to the sense of duty that comes with it, runs deep and is grounded in something personal and sincere. Faith, service and responsibility are themes that have long shaped the role he will one day inherit, and they are things he approaches in his own thoughtful way.”
The statement wants to imply – to some readers – that he is a deep but shy Christian. But it also wants to let other readers know that he is an honest agnostic who won’t fake a faith he doesn’t have. One senses a tense conversation behind this statement. It sounds like the aide has tried to get William to call himself a believer, and he has refused. And so the aide has worked hard to come up with a wording that leaves it ambiguous, that reassures some of us that he is more than an agnostic cultural Christian.
Another anti-clarification from the aide: “At a time when institutions can be seen simply through a social or cultural lens, he understands that the Church’s role goes beyond this. It is not only part of the nation’s heritage, but a living expression of faith, rooted in prayer, compassion and a belief in grace and redemption.” In other words, he is not just a cultural Christian, he really believes in Christianity as something rooted in people’s religious faith. Other people’s?
Maybe this finally clarifies things: ‘The aide added: “True to his character, he approaches these relationships as his authentic self. As he looks ahead to the responsibilities he will one day assume as supreme governor, he is keen to build a strong and meaningful bond with the Church and its leadership, one that respects tradition while speaking to a modern Britain, and reflects his broader belief that institutions must continue to remain relevant and connected to the people they serve.”’
The key thing that comes across is the insistence on William’s sincerity and authenticity. He refuses to claim to be a Christian for convenience’s sake. Also, he wants this role to ‘evolve’ in some unspecified way.
One feels for him. What an odd fate, to inherit a role that requires a certain specific religious allegiance. Every fibre of one’s being would surely cry out: ‘No! I must decide for myself what I believe – just as everyone else does.’ I therefore have some respect for his semi-honesty about his agnosticism. Our age prizes authenticity and rightly so goddammit. Christianity prizes it too, especially the iconoclastic Protestant version.
This, for the record, is what the Prince should have said:
‘To be honest my personal faith is a grey area, a work in progress. Part of me is uncomfortable with the fact that I am expected to be a good Anglican, that the job requires it. It’s almost enough to make one a Satanist! But I am sure of this: British values are deeply rooted in our Christian tradition. The Church of England has played a huge role in making Britain the most influential liberal state in history, and it continues to play that role, quietly but surely. I am proud to serve this tradition, and I hope that my personal understanding of it will continue to deepen.’
Comments