How could Boris the cheerful pagan credibly get married in a Catholic cathedral?

Throughout Boris Johnson’s life, there have been two consistent themes, both of which were on display this weekend. The first is the capacity to surprise us. The second is the belief that inconvenient rules do not apply to him.

That brings us to the vexed question of his marital status. A considerable number of Roman Catholic clergymen would take the view that no-one who is already married in the eyes of Holy  Church should be allowed to remarry in an RC church. Secular divorce would not count. Apart from death, they would insist that the only way to end a marriage is annulment. The suggestion is that the authorities of Westminster Cathedral decided otherwise. As the Roman Church had nothing to do with Boris’ earlier marriages, they concluded that they did not count. That is a curious, indeed controversial, ruling – which would appear to confirm Boris’ view that rules are for others. It would seem to mean that the Church might condone bigamy, as long as the bigamist had kept clear of a Catholic nuptial.

That said, annulment itself would seem dubious to many non-Romans. “Annulment” means that the marriage never existed. How could anyone say that of Boris’ marriage to Marina Wheeler, which lasted for 27 years and produced four children? Throughout almost all of those years, Miss Wheeler probably had grounds for divorce. Until matters became intolerable, she would perhaps have agreed with Lady (Elizabeth) Longford, who was once asked if she had ever thought of divorcing Frank. “Never. Murder from time to time, but never divorce.” Yet the rules pertaining in the family courts are not those of the Roman Catholic Church. I put it to one priest that “annulment” is merely a Roman canon law translation of “divorce”. Not so, he insisted: the procedures for annulment are rigorous. In that case, Boris could never have satisfied them.

There had also been a strong rumour that the PM is about to move over to Rome and has been receiving instruction. That might seem the most implausible conversion since Rex Mottram in Brideshead Revisited (he and Julia Flyte were not allowed to marry in a Church). 

Like Mottram, Boris is a cheerful pagan, with no hint of Christianity in his being. The dog Dilyn may well be less prone to invincible ignorance. Moreover, a convert to Rome must also have a first confession. Dominic Cummings’ testimony took seven hours. 

Surely Boris’ curriculum malorum would take a lot longer than that and I am told that there is no equivalent of the convicted defendant in a criminal court wiping his slate clean by asking for large numbers of offences to be taken into consideration. Whatever latitude he was allowed in the arrangements for the marriage, Boris may be relieved that the seal of the confessional is a strict rule. Then again, he might be tempted to sell the film rights.

Anyway, let us wish the new couple every happiness.

We are informed that the PM has already returned to work, as the 21 June deadline approaches. Over the past year, many of us have serially underestimated the British public’s enthusiasm for authoritarian measures, and that may still be true. Even so, there seems to be no case for extending the partial lockdown although there is a strong case for accelerating the vaccination programme. On the basis of the evidence, those who have been jabbed appear to be very unlikely to catch Indian Covid. The Covid death rate is still higher than the one arising from road traffic accidents, but not by much. If there ought to be continued Covid restrictions, why not lock down the roads?

It is surely time for the Government to move on from the lockdown mode. That brings us to the question of the public inquiry. Many aggrieved relatives see this as a chance for revenge, as do opposition politicians, not to mention Dominic Cummings. They all want public humiliation for the guilty men. Although there is no way of avoiding all that, it has an unfortunate consequence. Lord Saville took thirteen and a half years to investigate the events of two hours: Bloody Sunday. If the Covid Inquiry meets in public, festooned by counsel and relatives – forget about its reporting before the next Election. As Boris would say, it will be postponed until the Greek Calends.

But we need an inquiry, so that we can learn the lessons and thus handle the next pandemic more efficiently. That is more important than castigating the guilty. It could be done much more effectively if most of the inquiry sessions were in private.

There are other priorities. The economic damage from Covid appears to be less serious than had been generally predicted, but it needs to be addressed. So does the moral hazard arising from furloughing, the damage to many children’s education, the physical hazards of long Covid, plus the neglect of other medical conditions. There is a full agenda for a strong ministerial team, let alone for one of the weakest cabinets ever.

For months a reshuffle has been forecast for this administration, as its inadequacies became apparent. It may be that he is preparing a new surprise. We can only be certain of one thing. It will not be the last one.