Andrew Mackinlay MP tabled a question in parliament last week that only a Christian and a royalist could possibly have dreamed up: was Camilla Parker Bowles going to be added by royal warrant to the state prayers? These prayers are said in many churches (who'd have thought?), included Diana until 1996 (who knew?) and now mention only the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles. The palace responded that there were no plans to include the Duchess of Cornwall by name, though she was included "by implication, because churchgoers pray in general to the royal family" (who knew that?).It's a perfectly defensible decision by the Queen. The marriage between Charles and Camilla has any number of features that aren't particularly reputable - its genesis, for instance. Churchgoers may well object to praying for an adulteress (though they seem to be OK about praying for an adulterer). Some people would probably be upset at the insult to Diana's memory. Blah, blah and blah. They're all good reasons, but it's just not very Christian, is it?As we've seen from the myriad ambiguities of the pomp and semi-pomp surrounding this couple's union, there are no fixed rules where divorcees are concerned any more. The wife of the future king is not necessarily the future queen. The civil-ceremony nuptials of the future head of the church didn't, as it turned out, diminish his fitness for that job. The Queen can refuse to attend the ceremony, but still hold the reception.For all the dark foreboding while the pair were still just - gulp - lovers, none of this turned out to be any more far-reaching or constitutional than the kvetching of any other family about who pays for the bridesmaids' dresses. If the Queen wanted to have Camilla in the state prayers, there isn't a Diana-lover in all of England who could stop her. As it turns out, she'd rather not. Camilla has suffered so many snubs from this quirky woman she must be feeling pretty stoic, but it does make you wonder. Is a parish church the best place to vent a not-very-Christian decision, based on not-quite-forgiveness? Can't she just snub Camilla by inviting her to a cocktail party, but not to the dinner afterwards?This family doesn't just thrive on, it owes everything to, the delicately unasked question: how does it feel to be head of state with no political muscle? Does anyone get a shiver of embarrassment about being head of the church while having no obvious spiritual obligations? Is it a little bit weird to be bankrolled for foreign trips while pursuing your own business interests?Most of this refers to Prince Charles, I now realise, but doesn't a metaphorical plinth seem a bit jerry-built when, after you've been held aloft by the taxpayer, you start sniffing out tax loopholes as fervently as a cash-in-hand plasterer? More pertinent to the young princes, how would even a very intelligent youngster square an attempt to present a "modern" face with the fact that his very position is an anachronism?If the Queen thinks Camilla is too unsuitable a spouse to be named as such, why did she sanction the wedding? Ah, but she didn't - she just, you know, kind of did. That's this family all over. They don't want anything clarified. They treat contradictions like herpes - insoluble, unfortunate, but for God's sake don't mention them and, besides, didn't we all have fun getting into this mess?I had this argument once with someone who said tolerating ambiguity was the sign of a civilised society. It shut me up for a bit. But here, as in so many cases, ambiguity is just another word for bilge. Tolerating bilge is the sign of a lazy society. They're skating along on the carapace of our sloth, this family. I'm sure that's not what the divine right of kings was supposed to be about.