The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 07-23-2008, 04:27 PM
Monika_'s Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
In most European countries a church marriage alone is not considered valid, so pre-church service the marriage certificate of the registration offcie has to be shown. For Royal weddings the "civil" part is handled after the church wedding in a side room of the church where the wedding took place - at least that's what I gathered from the European Royal weddings of the past years.
I didn’t realize that about European countries. Interesting. I guess people are focused on the civil ceremony aspect because it was the first time it was required for the Windsor’s, and a future king, no less.
__________________

__________________
"If I had said some things about her before 1997, she could have responded to them but, since she is not here, it would be very unfair to make a comment about her." Dr Hasnat Khan
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 07-23-2008, 04:41 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I think the typical two-part wedding ceremonies in Europe are a result of Napoleonic rule and his attempt to spread the modernizations of the Revolution. Since he never managed to conquer the U.K., they don't have the two-part weddings.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 07-23-2008, 04:45 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monika_ View Post
I didn’t realize that about European countries. Interesting. I guess people are focused on the civil ceremony aspect because it was a first time it was required for the Windsor’s, and a future king, no less.
Till this discussion I didn't realize there were two different ways to marry legally in the UK! I found you could either marry in church or have a civil wedding, both valid when it comes to the consequences of being married. I always thought that the signing of the registration of their marriage was infact the same as the "civil wedding" when it came to Charles' and Diana's marriage, because here in Germany a "civil wedding" consists of two people declaring that they want to enter the contract of a legal marriage and the registration officer is just the official witness of them entering into an officially acknowledged contract. So I thought, obviously wrongly, that the registration officer who witnessed the wedding in church simply accounted for what he had seen and thus they were wedded both in church and in a civil marriage. And the same for any Royal wedding before.

So when Charles and Camilla wed I thought they were just doing the civil part seperately as is the custom here in Germany and other European countries and then went to church, not for a wedding ceremony as this was against the church rules but for a blessing which I thought amounted to the same. But obviously it really was something new.

But then, something I find adequate in our times with so many different people of so many different believes inhabiting Britain.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 07-23-2008, 04:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 118
I think the UK laws on marriage have been updated in the last 20ish years. When my parents and aunts/uncles got married in a catholic church they had to have a registar there as it would not have been legal.

The thing is that Charles could have married for a second time in a church - it happens all of the time in the UK today.

I think it showed great respect for the church to do what he did.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 07-23-2008, 04:56 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Lyman View Post
I think the UK laws on marriage have been updated in the last 20ish years. When my parents and aunts/uncles got married in a catholic church they had to have a registar there as it would not have been legal.
I think it is either a civil marriage or a marriage in the CoE or CoS - if you want to marry in a Catholic or other church you have to go through the proceedings of a civil marriage in addition in order that the marriage is considered legally valid.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 07-23-2008, 05:03 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 118
Definately been changed went to a few cathloic weddings in the last 10yrs and no need for registrar anymore
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 07-23-2008, 06:23 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Lyman View Post
I think the UK laws on marriage have been updated in the last 20ish years. When my parents and aunts/uncles got married in a catholic church they had to have a registar there as it would not have been legal.

The thing is that Charles could have married for a second time in a church - it happens all of the time in the UK today.

I think it showed great respect for the church to do what he did.
If you marry in the Church of England, Wales or Scotland, you do not have to have a registrar present, but a registrar is normally required for all other religions. In the aforementioned churches, you have by law to notify the Superintendent Registrar, in the area you live. One of you must reside or worship in the area and of course the dreaded reading of the banns. After the ceremony, the bride, groom, 2 witnesses and the minister normally go to a sideroom to sign the register.

Even now for other religions, unless the church has it's own registered and approved registrar, you have to arrange for one to attend.

Charles could, like his sister have married in the Church of Scotland with no problems at all and I agree that it showed great respect for the CoE, (that perhaps they did not deserve considering the stance of a couple of senior members), that he decided on a civil ceremony followed by a blessing. He could of course have just had a civil ceremony as thousands do!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:15 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Can you imagine the headlines, though, if he had? I mean, I don't know if the tabloids would have claimed that Charles was rejecting the church and therefore was signalling that he didn't want to be King or if they'd have tried to say that the Church was rejecting Charles and therefore he'd never be allowed a coronation. Or probably both. In the same article, knowing some of them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:24 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
The realpolitik is that Charles could not have had a marriage which didn't involve the CoE. Period. It simply could not have been done.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:24 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Can you imagine the headlines, though, if he had? I mean, I don't know if the tabloids would have claimed that Charles was rejecting the church and therefore was signalling that he didn't want to be King or if they'd have tried to say that the Church was rejecting Charles and therefore he'd never be allowed a coronation. Or probably both. In the same article, knowing some of them.

I think it would have been much ado about nothing, but like you said, considering British tabloids it would have been WWIII. BTW, I think British tabloids are much better than ours, in terms of comedic value. Yours are way more outrageous.


I think Charles did the smart thing, by just having a civil service and then a church blessing. It wasn't dire necessity that he marry in the church again.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 07-24-2008, 03:52 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
If you marry in the Church of England, Wales or Scotland, you do not have to have a registrar present, but a registrar is normally required for all other religions. In the aforementioned churches, you have by law to notify the Superintendent Registrar, in the area you live. One of you must reside or worship in the area and of course the dreaded reading of the banns. After the ceremony, the bride, groom, 2 witnesses and the minister normally go to a sideroom to sign the register.

Even now for other religions, unless the church has it's own registered and approved registrar, you have to arrange for one to attend.

Charles could, like his sister have married in the Church of Scotland with no problems at all and I agree that it showed great respect for the CoE, (that perhaps they did not deserve considering the stance of a couple of senior members), that he decided on a civil ceremony followed by a blessing. He could of course have just had a civil ceremony as thousands do!
Is Camilla's marriage to Andrew recognised by the Anglican church at all because she had a Catholic wedding? I know that Catholics, who have been married to a non-Catholic in a non-Catholic church can have an annullment of the religious part of the wedding and then go on to marry again in a Catholic church. As I think the Catholics are much more fundamental than the Anglicans when it comes to church weddings - couldn't Camilla have asked for an anullment of the religious part of her wedding to Andrew? Then she would have been able to marry Charles in an Anglican church because his first wife had been dead?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 07-24-2008, 04:57 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Yes Camilla's marriage to a catholic was recognised by the CoE and of course, it was registered by a registrar, thereby making it legal. It is a strange that she didn't, or rather Andrew didn't apply for an annulment, as he could have applied on the grounds that he didn't follow "canonical form'.

The CoE do not have a problem with the marriage of an Anglican to a Catholic or civil marriages, but some clergy do have a problem accepting anulments and those that end in divorce.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 07-24-2008, 05:05 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Yes, it is a strange that she didn't, or rather Andrew didn't as he could have applied on the grounds that he didn't follow "canonical form'.
Maybe it was because of the children. We have a couple in the family who married as Catholics, divorced and married other partners in a civil wedding, but refrained to have kids with the new partner because they could only get legitimate children according to Catholic belief if the asked for an anullment of their first marriage, which in consequence would make the son from that first marriage a bastard in the eyes of the church. Being devout Catholics they opted for no more kids. And I can tell you how hard the decision was to end their first marriage, how great their hatred was and how much their love for their new partners was to lead to a second marriage. Both still suffer because of that, so I guess deciding against more children was a form of punishment, too.

But that's how certain Catholics work and I wouldn't put it past Andrew and Camilla, that they wanted to spare Tom and Laura. Even if that made an easier way out for Charles and Camilla impossible.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 07-24-2008, 05:07 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
The realpolitik is that Charles could not have had a marriage which didn't involve the CoE. Period. It simply could not have been done.
I believe he could have had only a non religious ceremony, but not if he wanted to be the Supreme Governor, if the position is still available when he becomes King. With the earnest discussions in parliament and Ekklesia regarding the disestablishment of the CoE, there are no guarantees.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 07-24-2008, 05:16 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
Maybe it was because of the children. We have a couple in the family who married as Catholics, divorced and married other partners in a civil wedding, but refrained to have kids with the new partner because they could only get legitimate children according to Catholic belief if the asked for an annulment of their first marriage, which in consequence would make the son from that first marriage a bastard in the eyes of the church.
I found this on a Catholic website
Quote:
Children are NEVER affected by annulments. With an annulment there is always the assumption that at the time of their marriage the couple believed their marriage to be legitimate and therefore the children were legitimately conceived. Any later annulment does not undo the fact that there was the assumption of a marriage at that time. The Church recognized that
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 07-24-2008, 05:51 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
That's because that's how things are done in those countries. You marry for the State first, then the Church. You can't do the religious service before the civil.
.

I do know that, but I was responding to the question 'what other heir to the throne married in a civil ceremony and then had a religious one?'

So my answer, recently, Philippe of Belgium and Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands. (Charles wasn't the only one, before Beatrix of Netherlands and Albert of Belgium)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 07-24-2008, 07:05 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
I found this on a Catholic website
This is very interesting, though somewhat off-topic. Is this attitude on the part of the Catholic church something new? Catholic acquaintances of mine got an annulment about 30 years ago and I'm sure there was a fuss because their son was deemed illegitimate because of it. And I also thought that it was at the root of entitlement to annulment that there was a fatal flaw in the marriage at the time it occurred relating to intention of one or both of the parties. But then I have little to do with the Catholic church and was never confirmed in my own so in this regard my knowledge of church matters is akin to what the average women's magazine reader knows about the Royal Family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 07-24-2008, 08:38 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
There is a misconception about the Catholic church and annulments. Children are considered innocent in the matter, and because the church assumes the good faith intentions of the parties entering into the marriage, the children are born and remain legitimate. The later annulment of their parents marriage does not affect their legitimacy. The fatal flaw in a marriage could be as simple as immaturity on the part of one of the parties. Hardly something you could hold against a child.

This has been the viewpoint of the Catholic church at least since Vatican II, so it should not have been a consideration for Camilla and Andrew with regards to Tom and Laura. It would also not be any religious factor for Camilla in entering a marriage with Charles, since she was not the Catholic in the marriage with Andrew.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 07-24-2008, 09:20 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Can you imagine the headlines, though, if he had? I mean, I don't know if the tabloids would have claimed that Charles was rejecting the church and therefore was signalling that he didn't want to be King or if they'd have tried to say that the Church was rejecting Charles and therefore he'd never be allowed a coronation. Or probably both. In the same article, knowing some of them.
Like I said, some people are so delusional as to put Saint Charles even above an entire church. The only thing worse than a religious fanatic is people who worship mere mortals. Sad that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 07-24-2008, 09:23 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: fort lauderdale, United States
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
I do know that, but I was responding to the question 'what other heir to the throne married in a civil ceremony and then had a religious one?'

So my answer, recently, Philippe of Belgium and Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands. (Charles wasn't the only one, before Beatrix of Netherlands and Albert of Belgium)
And your answer was in turn answered by me to point out that I was not referring to other European monarchies, strictly to marriages of British royalty.
__________________

__________________
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 crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion 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 poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:25 AM.

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]