I say: who cares? Royals deserve the Guillotine.

"I, however, find it remarkable that the Church of England is considered a font of moral teaching on the matter of royal divorce, adultery, and remarriage. Aside from the most obvious precedent, where was the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of, say, George IV?)"

Especially since the Church of England itself wouldn't have come into existence if not for the desire of a certain king -- Henry VIII -- to marry or divorce at his own choosing. Now, the longrunning feud between Rome and London over who actually had supremacy in England also had much to do with the church's birth. But considering the history, the Anglicans don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to this matter.

"The House of Hanover And Its Discontents"
Don't you mean House of Hanover-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Montbatten-Windsor and its discontents?

RiShawn, I've got to disagree. The origin of the Anglican Church is irrelevant. The church can and should have standards, or it's worthless. (I mean moral standards in general--I don't have any strong opinions on this case.)

"But considering the history, the Anglicans don't have much of a leg to stand on"--Oh?! Just because the king who set it up fell below those standards doesn't mean the church has to lower itself to that level. If that were true, what church could possibly stand? The Roman Catholic church would permanently have to lower itself to the level of some of its distasteful Mediaeval popes, for example. Or the Inquisition. Can the R.C.'s never, ever preach tolerance after that thing?

And don't shortchange that London-Rome fight, either. It wasn't just a fight over control; Protestant theology was part of it, as well. One of Henry's wives (I've forgotten which) influenced him on this. And after Henry, who began the new church, was dead, don't forget that it was Elizabeth who codified the theological differences between the Protestant Anglican church and the Roman Catholic church. (This after a period of returning to Roman control.) The church Henry began was modified and improved by those who followed him.

That being said...eesh! We're free of those foreign kings, thank goodness. We shouldn't spend much time bothering with their issues. Still, I think some details of royal succession and authority are interesting, from a standpoint of anachronisms and mediaeval laws that are still there. But I'm just interested in that kind of thing, and I hope the American press doesn't spend its time with this.

Considering that Charles will one day be head of state of one of the US's major allies, I think the press is right to devote attention to his marriage. Americans may not agree with the idea of a monarchy, but it exists (even in Canada, just next door), so royal issues are of more than academic medieval interest.

The end of monarchy has been forecast for many years by its naysayers, but has shown a remarkable ability to adapt and survive.