Florizel's Folly

by John Ashton

'The doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding marriage is plain and simple. She teaches that the marriage contract itself, which is perfected by the words, "I take thee for my wife," on the part of the man, and "I take thee for my husband," on the part of the woman, or by any other words, or signs, by which the contracting parties manifest their intention of taking each other for man and wife, is a sacrament. Protestants are apt to fall into the mistake that it is the priest who administers the sacrament to the wedded pair. He does no such thing. As far as the validity of the contract and of the sacrament is concerned, even when the contracting parties are both Catholics, the priest need not utter a word. His presence is only necessary as a witness to the contract between the parties. Up to the time of the Council of Trent, the presence of a priest was not necessary for the validity of either the contract, or the sacrament. Nor was it by any means to confer the sacrament that the Council enacted a law requiring his presence. The law was made in consequence of the abuses which arose from clandestine marriages, because an immoral person who had married without witnesses, could, afterwards, deny the existence of the contract, and wed another publicly, and in the face of the Church. To prevent this abuse, the Council of Trent enacted that the parish priest of one of the contracting parties, or some other priest deputed by him, and two other witnesses should, for the future (in posterum), be present (præsente parocho) at the marriage contract. The presence of the two other witnesses is required exactly in the same way as that of the parish priest. The law is simply that marriage should be contracted in the presence of three witnesses, one of whom should, necessarily, be the parish priest.

'Nor was this law made, at once, obligatory, even on Catholics. By an ordinance of the Council, it was not to have effect in any parish until thirty days after it had been published there. This allowed a large discretion to each bishop with regard to the time of its publication in his diocese, and, in fact, it is not long since it has been introduced into England.

'But it does not, and never did apply to any marriage in these countries, where one of the parties is not a Catholic. Neither in such marriages, which are called mixed, nor in those contracted between parties, neither of whom belong to the Catholic Church, is the presence of any priest required for the validity of either the contract, or sacrament. It is not even necessary that the contracting parties should know that marriage is a sacrament. The sacrament exists wherever Christians marry as Christ intended; and, if they be properly disposed, they will receive grace to live happily together, and to bring up their children in the fear and love of God.

'Mrs. Fitzherbert's marriage was, therefore, perfectly valid, both as a contract and as a sacrament, in the eyes of the whole Catholic Church, and to imagine that she alone, of all those who professed the same faith, should look upon it as invalid, is monstrously absurd. Neither the Pope, nor the whole Church could have annulled it, nor allowed her to marry another.

'But it was illegal! Why, so was the whole Catholic religion, at the same period. It was, not very long ago, unlawful to celebrate Mass, but the sacrifice was not, therefore, invalidly offered. To say that Mrs. Fitzherbert considered the marriage ceremony to be nonsense, because it was illegal, at the time when the penal code against Catholics—and especially that part of it which regarded matrimony—was in full operation, is about as reasonable, as to prove that she did not believe in transubstantiation, because the law declared it to be damnable and idolatrous.'

For the next two or three years we hear little about the Prince, the newspapers leaving his doings unrecorded. We learn (May 15, 1797) that 'On last Thursday evening, the Prince of Wales, accompanied by a single gentleman, arrived at his Pavilion at Brighton. His Royal Highness, the next day, reviewed the Monmouth and Brecon Militia, on the Downs, near the above place. To-day, we hear, the Prince leaves Brighton, having come there only for a few days, by the advice of Dr. Warren, for the benefit of the sea air. His Royal Highness has lost much of his corpulence since he was last at Brighton.'

He went again, on July 24, to be present at the races, and it is recorded that, on October 23, 'The Prince of Wales amused himself with a day's shooting at Petworth, on an invitation from the Earl of Egremont. The next day, his Royal Highness being on his way to London, with post horses, very narrowly escaped being overturned, about a mile and a half on the other side of Cuckfield, where the horses, by some means, took the carriage off the main road to the side of a bank, and with an inclination that threatened its overturn, for the space of many yards, but fortunately, and owing to the lowness of the carriage, it was kept upon its wheels.'

He was present at the races on August 1, 2, and 3, 1798, and a newspaper remarks that 'The change of society and manners which has taken place at the Pavilion, gives the most heartfelt satisfaction to every lover of his country; it is, now, every way worthy of the Heir apparent of the British Empire.'

In 1799 we hear of him being at Brighton, both in July and October. In 1800 he was at the races in August, when his horse Knowsley won a race. In the 'Brighton New Guide,' fourth edition, there is a good view of the Pavilion as it was in 1800, with the following text: