Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Thank You very much! If they have the "legal" ability to marry then that is really all that matters. IF they fail to follow the rules and protocols to retain their "Royal" status and privileges then that is on them, as they have no "right" to them otherwise, imo.

Their titles and styles are enjoyed as a consequence of their precedence and place, however, they can be granted or withheld by The Sovereign at any time and for any reason.

So, they may legally be able to marry anybody they want, but if they defy the Crown, the price would be the loss of their royal rank and title.
 
What I find amusing is that the future head of the COE has a "wife" that his own Church don't recognise as his wife ie he could only get a blessing but not re-marraige to Camilla because the husband she married in the eyes of the COE still lives. So if Charles ever got a Coronation and wanted Camilla crowned Queen with him the COE would be crowning a Queen that they don't officially recognise as his legitimate wife. Isn't the whole thing a joke?
 
Last edited:
I believe the Church of England does recognize Camilla as Charles' wife.
 
What I find amusing is that the future head of the COE has a "wife" that his own Church don't recognise as his wife ie he could only get a blessing but not re-marraige to Camilla because the husband she married in the eyes of the COE still lives. So if Charles ever got a Coronation and wanted Camilla crowned Queen with him the COE would be crowning a Queen that they don't officially recognise as his legitimate wife. Isn't the whole thing a joke?

The church does recognize Camilla as his wife.

As the Archbishop said at the blessing:

"Charles and Camilla, you stand in the presence of God as man and wife to dedicate to him your life together, that he may consecrate your marriage and empower you to keep the covenant and promise you have solemnly declared."

That looks a lot like the highest spiritual officer of the church recognizing it.
 
To date, the COE will not re-marry divorcees that is why Charles had to marry Camilla in a register office.The problem wasn't with him as he is a widower but with her as the husband she married in the eyes of God still lives.
 
It was mentioned before that the CoE will marry divorcees under some circumstances. I cannot believe that the only circumstance that the CofE will marry divorcees is if both exes are dead.
 
I found this on the COE website;

"The Church of England believes that marriage is for life. But it recognises that sadly, some marriages do fail. In exceptional circumstances, the Church accepts that a divorced person may marry again.
Speak to your parish priest. He or she will want to talk to you frankly about your past and your hopes for the future. Even if it is not possible to do your wedding, they may be willing to offer you service of prayer and dedication after a civil ceremony."



Your marriage in the Church of England | Church of England
 
It was mentioned before that the CoE will marry divorcees under some circumstances. I cannot believe that the only circumstance that the CofE will marry divorcees is if both exes are dead.

For whatever reason, whether or not the C of E will marry 'some divorcees under some circumstances' the reality is that the C of E DECLINED TO MARRY CHARLES AND CAMILLA. They had to have a civil ceremony. Can anyone tell me why the church refused to perform the ceremony?
 
For whatever reason, whether or not the C of E will marry 'some divorcees under some circumstances' the reality is that the C of E DECLINED TO MARRY CHARLES AND CAMILLA. They had to have a civil ceremony. Can anyone tell me why the church refused to perform the ceremony?
But doesen't that make their marriage morgnatic?
 
Charles and Camilla couldn't marry in the church because Camilla was a divorcee. COE has a number of questionsthey ask if they marry a divorcee.
One of those questions is "Was their realtionship a direct cause of the breakdown of a previous marriage?" The Church thought their adultery
helped cause the failure of of Andrew and Camilla marriage.

But if Andrew dies before Charles and Camilla, they could be married in the church since then they would both be widowers.
 
For whatever reason, whether or not the C of E will marry 'some divorcees under some circumstances' the reality is that the C of E DECLINED TO MARRY CHARLES AND CAMILLA. They had to have a civil ceremony. Can anyone tell me why the church refused to perform the ceremony?

To use your capital letters.

The Church of England DID NOT decline to marry Charles and Camilla. Permission to marry in the church was never asked and therefore NEVER declined! Charles ( and his advisors) mindfull of the fact that he would become Head of the Church one day decided to go with the Church's prefered way of dealing with remarriage in the Anglican church. ( It's on the Church's website, feel free to inform yourself)

The Church's preferred way to deal with remarriage in the church is for the couple to have a civil wedding and followed by a church blessing.
This therefore was what Charles ( and his advisors) opted for.
 
But doesen't that make their marriage morgnatic?

No. In a morganatic marriage, the wife wouldn't have shared her husband's titles. She'd have been given some lower title and wouldn't have had the HRH or any precedence in the royal family. And the Queen sure as heck wouldn't have lent her the Delhi Durbar tiara - the nearest thing to a crown among any of the tiaras - for her first formal event.

Morganatic marriage isn't recognised in British law. That's part of what made the treatment of the Duchess of Windsor so unfair.
 
Last edited:
But doesen't that make their marriage morgnatic?

No, since Camilla is fully entitled to be styled as his wife, and any hypothetical children would be in the line of succession, etc. There is no legal concept of morganatic marriages in the UK, as Edward VIII found out in 1936. You're either fully married or you aren't. Charles and Camilla are.
 
For whatever reason, whether or not the C of E will marry 'some divorcees under some circumstances' the reality is that the C of E DECLINED TO MARRY CHARLES AND CAMILLA. They had to have a civil ceremony. Can anyone tell me why the church refused to perform the ceremony?

Do you have a link to a statement from the CofE to that effect?
 
But if Andrew dies before Charles and Camilla, they could be married in the church since then they would both be widowers.

Why would they get married twice? The church would have no reason to marry people who are already recognized as married by both the church and the law.
 
But if Andrew dies before Charles and Camilla, they could be married in the church since then they would both be widowers.

The Anglican Church recognises civil divorce, Charles did not remarry as a widower, if APB dies Camilla is not considered a widow.

Prior to their marriage the church considered BOTH as divorcees.
 
Why would they get married twice? The church would have no reason to marry people who are already recognized as married by both the church and the law.
No, I dont have a link to an official statement, however, they were in fact, married in a civil ceremony (with or without an official link), the first member of the british royal family to ever do so., in defiance of the marriage act. What possible reason would there be for the future supreme head if the Church of England to marry in a civil service, knowing that it opens the door to constitutional isssues, if the option was open for a church wedding that would 'grease the wheel' when it comes to coronation time? There is no way that they 'chose' to have a civil service. It makes no sense.
 
No, I dont have a link to an official statement, however, they were in fact, married in a civil ceremony (with or without an official link), the first member of the british royal family to ever do so., in defiance of the marriage act. What possible reason would there be for the future supreme head if the Church of England to marry in a civil service, knowing that it opens the door to constitutional isssues, if the option was open for a church wedding that would 'grease the wheel' when it comes to coronation time? There is no way that they 'chose' to have a civil service. It makes no sense.

Why need anything be "greased" come coronation time? The coronation will happen. That's one benefit of the church being established, a proclamation by the King commanding them to do it has legal effect.

Oh, and the Marriage Act you speak of went out of force in 1949. The Lord Chancellor of the day assured that. As the chief legal authority in the realm at the time of the wedding, I would take his word over anyone else's.
 
No, I dont have a link to an official statement, however, they were in fact, married in a civil ceremony (with or without an official link), the first member of the british royal family to ever do so., in defiance of the marriage act. What possible reason would there be for the future supreme head if the Church of England to marry in a civil service, knowing that it opens the door to constitutional isssues, if the option was open for a church wedding that would 'grease the wheel' when it comes to coronation time? There is no way that they 'chose' to have a civil service. It makes no sense.

The same reason, presumably, that Camilla chose to be called HRH The Duchess of Cornwall when she could have called herself HRH The Princess of Wales. Prudence and sensitivity to public opinion.

It seems as though the royal family took legal advice about whether a civil ceremony was legal for a member of the royal family and were told it was. Remarriage in church after a divorce is a relatively new thing, and I don't think it's something the Church is probably thrilled about but is trying to move with the times. They're unlikely to have wanted a high-profile remarriage like this one being celebrated in church or it'd have put a lot of pressure on the clergy who prefer not to celebrate such marriages. Which is another possible reason.

Since nobody involved said anything about it, we don't know the exact reasons. However, as long as the Church didn't go public with a statement saying that Charles and Camilla were ineligible for marriage within the church, I don't think it's appropriate to put words into their mouth.
 
The Anglican Church recognises civil divorce, Charles did not remarry as a widower, if APB dies Camilla is not considered a widow.

Prior to their marriage the church considered BOTH as divorcees.


this is exactly what i was going to say. in the CoE, do the consider them to be widow/widower?
 
The Anglican Church recognises civil divorce, Charles did not remarry as a widower, if APB dies Camilla is not considered a widow.

Prior to their marriage the church considered BOTH as divorcees.



I could be wrong on Charles as a widower point. But I do remember reading a few articles around the time of the wedding that basically said it was was a pity Andrew wasn't dead they would have been able to marry in the church then. Also they would be able to marry in the church when after Andrew died.
 
I could be wrong on Charles as a widower point. But I do remember reading a few articles around the time of the wedding that basically said it was was a pity Andrew wasn't dead they would have been able to marry in the church then. Also they would be able to marry in the church when after Andrew died.

Good God, can you imagine the hysterical conspiracies that would have been trotted out if APB had died!:lol: Seriously, I have never understood why Charles didnt take a page from Princess Anne and re-marry in Scotland, where presumably such things are ok?
 
this is exactly what i was going to say. in the CoE, do the consider them to be widow/widower?
The CoE considered Charles to be a widower, Camilla as divorced. If APB had been dead, then as far as I know Williams would have offered the full gubbins. I know of a woman who having divorced and remarried, received a visit from the canon, to tell her that as her former husband had died, she could now become a full member of the church once again! Her reply is unrepeatable! :ROFLMAO:

The CoS has no such objections to divorced couples remarrying in church. :flowers:
 
For the non-Brits among us, CoS = Church of Scotland. Their more liberal attitude toward remarriage of divorced people is the reason why Princess Anne's second wedding took place in Scotland.
 
The CoE considered Charles to be a widower, Camilla as divorced.

that's interesting. why is it they consider him to be a widow even though diana was deceased? do they not recognize divorce?
 
No, since Camilla is fully entitled to be styled as his wife, and any hypothetical children would be in the line of succession, etc. There is no legal concept of morganatic marriages in the UK, as Edward VIII found out in 1936. You're either fully married or you aren't. Charles and Camilla are.

Unfortunately, the letters patent of 1937 did make The Duke's marriage morganatic, since both his wife and any children were denied the right to share his rank and title.

Once that precedent was created, it could happen again in the future.
 
Unfortunately, the letters patent of 1937 did make The Duke's marriage morganatic, since both his wife and any children were denied the right to share his rank and title.

Once that precedent was created, it could happen again in the future.

The marriage wasn't what did that, however. That was simply an exercise of the Sovereign's prerogative as fount of honour. It would have only been a morganatic marriage if the Duchess would have had no right to her husband's style even in the absence of the clause in the Letters Patent. Since the Duchess was able to take her husband's title (she was still the Duchess of Windsor, just not HRH the Duchess of Windsor), it means that marriage was very unmorganatic.

The debate on whether that could even be taken away from Wallis hinged on whether or not Edward still fell under the Letters Patent granting the style of Royal Highness to children of the sovereign and sons of sons of the sovereign. They eventually decided, for the sake of being able to do what they wanted, that he didn't.
 
Last edited:
She married HRH The Prince Edward, a son of the Sovereign, and should have automatically become HRH The Princess Edward under the 1917 Letters Patent and British common law. The effect of the letters patent issued in 1937 was to deny Wallis royal rank and grant her the style of the wife of a non-royal Duke, which she was not.

That is a morganatic marriage in every sense of the word.
 
She married HRH The Prince Edward, a son of the Sovereign, and should have automatically become HRH The Princess Edward under the 1917 Letters Patent and British common law. The effect of the letters patent issued in 1937 was to deny Wallis royal rank and grant her the style of the wife of a non-royal Duke, which she was not.

That is a morganatic marriage in every sense of the word.

Except for in the legal sense, which it wasn't. Any hypothetical male first-born child would have became the 2nd Duke of Windsor on Edward's death, which would be impossible in a true morganatic marriage.

The style of "Royal Highness" is given only at the pleasure of the Sovereign, whereas the style of peeresses is governed by common law. Had she still been styled "Wallis Simpson" after the marriage, it would be morganatic. If the Queen, tomorrow, were to issue letters patent cancelling the style of "Royal Highness" of all living wives, it still wouldn't make their marriages morganatic.
 
Back
Top Bottom