The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 10-09-2007, 09:29 AM
daisygoogles's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 123
Ok. Thanks.
Why didn't Charles and Camilla get married in the church/
Considering the huge part they play in the CoE now and more so in the future
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 10-09-2007, 10:52 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by daisygoogles View Post
Ok. Thanks.
Why didn't Charles and Camilla get married in the church/
Considering the huge part they play in the CoE now and more so in the future
Because the CoE's preferred way of dealing with remarriage in the church where one or both partners are divorced is for them to have a civil marriage and followed by a church blessing of their marriage. So that's the way C & C went, following the preferable recommendation.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 10-09-2007, 01:05 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
The legality of their marraige is another ambiguous element. Although we have been told that it is legal there are very respected legal minds who maintain it is not. I remember a couple of Professors of constitutional law from Oxford and Cambridge were on T.V. at the time of the wedding saying that it is not and never has been legal for a member of the Royal Family to marry in a register office in England and Wales. I remember not being surprised to hear them say that because when the Earl of St. Andrews married in Scotland the official reason was that it wasn't legal for him to do so in England. I have an old magazine from the 1980's as well in which Princess Michael said that was why she had her civil service in Austria. I often wonder if Prince Charles has been told what he wants to hear but when he and Camilla are dead the history books will judge that the marraige never was legal at all.
If they can claim that it was legal to deny Wallis an HRH on such idiotic grounds as that of the abdication removing Edward from the line of succession and thus removing his HRH (even though the Letters Patent of 1917 were silent on that particular subject), they can plausibly claim that anything to do with royal weddings is legal. Obviously they took legal advice about the register office situation, and obviously the advice was good enough to convince the Archbishop of Canterbury that it was a legal marriage or he'd have managed to make some excuse to not officiate at the service of prayer and dedication following the wedding.

Far as I remember with Princess Michael, right up until the day before her wedding she was hoping for a church wedding in the cathedral as well as the civil wedding. I don't think it'd have gone over too well for a member of the royal family to be marrying a divorcee in the Catholic Church in England.

Since the CofE lightened up on its stance toward divorce in 2003, it would have been possible for a liberal clergyman to marry Charles and Camilla in the Church. I assume that the expected backlash from conservatives made that option rather more risky than they wanted. It would always have been possible for them to marry in the Church of Scotland. Given that they had those alternatives and that the register office wedding wasn't the only possibility, there's no reason why they should have settled for the civil wedding unless they were sure it was legal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 10-09-2007, 04:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
A question from an uninformed American please.

I take it the Church of Scotland is a separate entity from the Church of England (Anglican / Anglican Communion which the American Episcopal Church is part of?)

Am I correct in assuming when the Royal family is in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland?

Thanks in advance for any help.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 10-09-2007, 04:27 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
The fact that it's up to individual clergy to decide whether or not to preform a church wedding for a divorced couple is also mention in the C of E's instruction to ministers in regarding the marriage of a divorce. Their wording is something like 'the individual minister can decide whether or not to perform a church wedding when a divorcee is wishing to remarry, mindful of the church's teaching on marriage" The instructions are quite elastic, the divorced person should be seen as single but then the minister can decide whether or not they will marry them. All bases covered!

The preferred option is for a minister to perform a blessing ceremony after the couple have married civilly. ( Basically present us with a fait accompli and we'll give you our blessing) The option that C & C went for.
not to offend any members of the CoE but it's crazy that this decision is left up to individual clergy. the church should have a rule/doctrine on the subject and all clergy should follow. it sounds so "directionless" when it's left open ended like this. no wonder there was all the confusion as to the legality or not of charles wanting to marry camilla.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 10-09-2007, 05:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,040
I know Princess Michael wanted a Church wedding but she said in the aforementioned interview that if a register office service had to take place it couldn't (or so was beleived until April 2005) be done in England so a marraige abroad was necessary. Lord St. Andrews was advised the same so why, all of a sudden, are we now told that this wasn't the law at all. Prince Charles' wedding smacked of the Establishment, including the COE, falling over themselves to accomodate him and telling him what he wanted to hear and I really do beleive that in the fullness of time history will judge there to have been serious doubts on it's validity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 10-09-2007, 05:18 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
I guess as an American I take a totally different view of Church and State and it's appropriate relationship or lack thereof.

Here we have separation of Church and State, there is no official state religion, in fact our Constitution forbids it.

Perhaps separating the Church of England from the Crown might be advantageous to both Crown and State? Just asking.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 10-09-2007, 06:05 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I think that's what we'll see in the next 10 years to be honest. The Church is wildly out of touch and seems to on self destruct. The time for people to question it will come when it takes part in something big like a coronation so I think then we'll see the detachment of Church from State. In my opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 10-09-2007, 08:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
If they can claim that it was legal to deny Wallis an HRH on such idiotic grounds as that of the abdication removing Edward from the line of succession and thus removing his HRH (even though the Letters Patent of 1917 were silent on that particular subject), they can plausibly claim that anything to do with royal weddings is legal. Obviously they took legal advice about the register office situation, and obviously the advice was good enough to convince the Archbishop of Canterbury that it was a legal marriage or he'd have managed to make some excuse to not officiate at the service of prayer and dedication following the wedding.
Technically, Edward was permitted to abdicate by Parliament in order to marry whomever he wished. Since this represented two distinct breaches in established precedent and law (the line of succession was modified by Act of Parliament and the Royal Marriages Act did not apply to The Duke), this essentially gave approval for a morganatic marriage where none had ever existed before in Britain.

Given that point, The King certainly had the right to issue new letters patent clarifying what rank and style The Duke and Duchess would hold, given the circumstances of their marriage. Although the proper thing to do would have been to declare they both would not hold royal rank, George VI had already assured his brother he would retain his birthright as a son of George V and felt he had to honour that.

With Charles and Camilla, the Prime Minister gave consent to the marriage, as did The Queen. Legally, there is no requirement a member of the royal family receive the blessing of The Church, though of course, this is always done in practice. As long as they do not marry a Catholic, their rights are the same as any other subject, provided there are no objections from the Government or The Sovereign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 10-10-2007, 06:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
I know Princess Michael wanted a Church wedding but she said in the aforementioned interview that if a register office service had to take place it couldn't (or so was beleived until April 2005) be done in England so a marraige abroad was necessary. Lord St. Andrews was advised the same so why, all of a sudden, are we now told that this wasn't the law at all. Prince Charles' wedding smacked of the Establishment, including the COE, falling over themselves to accomodate him and telling him what he wanted to hear and I really do beleive that in the fullness of time history will judge there to have been serious doubts on it's validity.
The Earl of St Andrews married in a Registry office in England, it was in Cambridge. His brother Lord Nicholas Windsor last year married in a Registry Office in London to legalise his marriage in the UK before he married in a catholic church in The Vatican.

The circumstances of the marriage of Prince Michael of Kent and his wife are well documented, regardless of what Marie-Christine may or may not have said in an interview since. Newspaper articles of the time show that the planned wedding was to be a church one in Vienna, a week before the guests arrived and the plan was still for a catholic church wedding. It was only in the days before that it became obvious that MC wasn't going to get her annulment from the catholic church and so a Registry office wedding was quickly organised since the guests and the preparations for the wedding had already been made. They didn't want to postpone the wedding, and it was to be in Vienna not because it was a registry office wedding, that was only organised at the last moment but for 2 other reasons. One Michael was marrying a catholic in a catholic church and they didn't want to embarass the Queen as the Head of the CoE, she couldn't have been invited in the UK having it abroad made it easier. Plus MC wanted contact and acknowledgement of her own aristocratic background.
The Registry office thing was last minute not planned in advance, the date and location were set, the guests were there, the catholic church said no, so the only way they could get married on the date they planned was to marry in a registry office.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 10-11-2007, 03:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,040
I can assure you that the Earl of St Andrews married in Leith register office which is just outside Edinburgh and he was told to do so because it was said that he couldn't legally marry in England. I live in Scotland and remember that the wedding was given quite substantial coverage on our regional news programmes. I even remember that the bride wore a blue velvet suit and the Duchess and Lady Helen were in red. If anyone has a copy of the book,"My Young Friends" by Valerie Garner (1988) there is a picture of the wedding in it with the text explaining that he had to marry in Scotland for legal reasons. If you still don't beleive it was in Scotland look up his details online e.g. at thePeerage.com or wikipedia.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 10-11-2007, 04:23 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
It was only in the days before that it became obvious that MC wasn't going to get her annulment from the catholic church...
i had never heard that MC had been previously married...see what you learn by hanging around here!
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 10-11-2007, 04:37 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
I also remember that The Earl of St Andrews married in the registry office at Leith, Scotland in January 1988.

Times and practises within the CoE (and the UK) have changed dramatically over the last few years. Has everyone forgotten the massive arguments and splits within the CoE over female clergy or the upset still going on about 'Gay' clergy
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 10-11-2007, 07:09 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Has everyone forgotten the massive arguments and splits within the CoE over female clergy
It's still going on here.

Australian Diocese Votes for Women Priests: CEN 6.08.07 p 6. « Conger
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 10-11-2007, 07:36 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
A question from an uninformed American please.

I take it the Church of Scotland is a separate entity from the Church of England (Anglican / Anglican Communion which the American Episcopal Church is part of?)

Am I correct in assuming when the Royal family is in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland?

Thanks in advance for any help.
Far as I know, yes and yes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 10-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
I know Princess Michael wanted a Church wedding but she said in the aforementioned interview that if a register office service had to take place it couldn't (or so was beleived until April 2005) be done in England so a marraige abroad was necessary. Lord St. Andrews was advised the same so why, all of a sudden, are we now told that this wasn't the law at all.
The Earl of St Andrews isn't an HRH and was losing his position in the line of succession through marrying a Catholic anyway, so marriage in a register office wouldn't have made any difference to him. Prince Michael was also losing his position in the line of succession, and as already mentioned, the Princess was hoping right up until the day before to have a wedding in the Catholic church, which I'm fairly sure the Queen would have taken a dim view of having happen in England.


Quote:
Prince Charles' wedding smacked of the Establishment, including the COE, falling over themselves to accomodate him and telling him what he wanted to hear and I really do beleive that in the fullness of time history will judge there to have been serious doubts on it's validity.
Since he and Camilla could have been married in the CofE by a liberal clergyman or in the Church of Scotland by anyone, it isn't as though the register office was the only option. So if it was widely believed to be illegal, there were other things they could have done; there was no need to force the issue of marriage in a register office.

I think history is much more likely to look back and say that people who disapproved of Charles marrying Camilla for whatever reason (usually because of being Diana partisans) made a big deal of the ambiguity in the law in order to try and cast doubt on the marriage in the hopes of, if possible, preventing Camilla from being crowned Queen Consort and even preventing Charles from being King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 10-11-2007, 08:26 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
i had never heard that MC had been previously married...see what you learn by hanging around here!
You can read about it in "Princess Michael of Kent" by Peter Lane.
One of the first books I read about Royalty.
(Or pseudo-Royalty. . .)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 10-12-2007, 07:02 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
i had never heard that MC had been previously married.
For the record...
Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz married firstly at London 1971 Thomas Troubridge, son of the 6th Baronet Troubridge; separated 1973; marriage dissolved by divorce London Aug 1977; annulled at Westminster May 1978.

Married secondly at Vienna 30 June (civ) and at Lambeth Palace, London 30 Oct (relig) 1978 Prince Michael of Kent; marriage validated (in a Roman Catholic ceremony) at the Archbishop House, London July 1983.

Next year they will have been married for thirty years.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 10-12-2007, 02:53 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Far as I know, yes and yes.
Yes, you are right, although you didn't need me to tell you that. When in Scotland they attend the Church of Scotland, not the Free Church of Scotland!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 10-12-2007, 04:22 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
That reminds me of a story in which an Army commander shot himself and had to be buried in Singapore. Stanley Baxter and Kenneth Williams stood in line for pallbearing and when the MO asked Baxter to shoulder the coffin, Baxter replied, "Sorry, Church of Scotland". So the MO walked on and suddenly realised, came back and said, "Church of Scotland? You still have to bury people!". It was probably funny at the time.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:23 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]