“The late Robert Runcie, when the archbishop of Canterbury, told me that this would require a revision of the coronation oath, which in turn would require a new statute of parliament.
“Given the convention that parliament does not debate the monarchy without the monarch’s consent – it is his or her Government, after all, not ours – this would require the Prime Minister of the day to seek King Charles III’s permission to debate whether or not it felt able to crown him.
“This, Runcie told me, would amount to a constitutional crisis. It seems hard to disagree.”
Jessica stated: “Anthony Holden is correct when he states that the Anglican church has never crowned a divorced man as king, let alone one who has confessed to adultery – and nor has a woman participating in adultery become Queen.”
