Criticism of the King

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 300, 3 December 1936, Page 5

Criticism of the King

BISHOP STIRS STORM OF CONTROVERSY SENSATIONAL STORIES IN AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS. ■ ■■■ - * ' .. . * ’’ . ■ ' ■ ■ SERIOUSNESS OF PRELATE’S ACTION STRESSED. - .... FIRST REPROOF OF SOVEREIGN FOR MANY YEARS. •■ ■ ■■ (Press Association—Copyright.) . Received 1 1 a.m. To-day. i LONDON, December 2. A storm of controversy has arisen over a speech by the Bishop qf Bradford,' Dr. A. W. F. Blunt, in which he hinted at criticism of King Edward. After emphasising the King’s duty to foster religion, Dr. Blunt said:— ' “The benefit of the Coronation depends first on the faith, prayer and self-dedication of the King himself. On that it would be improper to say anything except to commend him to God’s grace, which he will so abundantly need if he is to do his duty faithfully. We hope he is aware of his need. Some of us wish that he gave more positive signs of such awareness.’’

- .A later message received from London says that though all the 'London morning papers published the Bishop of Bradford’s speech none of them commented editorially and only the News-Chronicle in its jater editions reproduced the provincial papers’ editorial comments. ~ . » - The Birmingham Post says: “Dr. Blunt’s words are words of reproof such as nobody, whether a cleric or a layman, has thought proper to addess to the King of England for many a long day. They are not necessarily to be condemned on that account as mere im-l pertinence, but a large section of the English people, which neither reads American newspapers nor listens to such gossip as runs around the purlieus of the Court, will inevitably ask to-day what they mean, and may be inclined further to inquire why the sentiment to which unquestionably the Bishop gave perfectly correct expression should not have been made known to His Majesty by some person even more fully, authorised than Dr. Blunt to speak in the name of the Church of England.” The Nottingham Journal says: “The constitutional relationship between the Dominions and the King gives added point to the very serious words of Dr. Blunt. Never since the days of the unpopularity of Queen Victoria has anything been spoken so seriously in public to a British Sovereign This is the Imperial aspect of the problem, which now outweighs all others.*’ ■■ >: ; , Further Reference To American Newspapers. .-A-,-.- •,.= i. .> “Dr. Blunt,” says the Yorkshire Post, “must have had good reason for the pointed remark, ’We hope the King is aware of his jieed. 3ome;of us wish he gave more positive signs of such awareness.* Most people by this time are aware that a great deal of rumour regarding the King has been published in the more sensational American newspapers. z •p • *'lt is proper to treat with contempt mere gossip such as is frequently associated with the names of European royal persons. The Bjshop .of Bradford would certainly not condescend to recognise it, but certain statements appearing in reputable United States journals and even, we believe, in some Dominion newspapers, cannot be treated with quite so much indifference.”