Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.

Charles isn't considered a widower by the C of E. Since the church recognises civil divorce, Charles was considered a single man again after his 1996 divorce. The church states that in its information on remarrying divorced couples. If a person is divorced then they are to be considered as single. So since the church considered him single, then he would not be a widower as at the time of his previous wife's death they weren't married. A single man can't be a widower.
 
A single man can't be a widower.

Are you using "single" in a technical sense under some legislation or protocol or something? I would have thought that "single" just refers to a person's current status as married or not married. If a person was married but their spouse died, they are now single.
 
Are you using "single" in a technical sense under some legislation or protocol or something? I would have thought that "single" just refers to a person's current status as married or not married. If a person was married but their spouse died, they are now single.

my understanding is that if a person is married and their spouse dies, they are considered widow/widower however if they divorce they are considered single (unmarried) and if one of them dies they are not widow/widower. i think you're correct in saying that if they are married and one of dies they are single by virtue of the fact that their spouse is no longer living and they are free to remarry if they want.

the press refering to charles as a "widower" has always annoyed me a little as in the eyes of the law he was not married and therefore couldn't be a widower.
 
Last edited:
Are you using "single" in a technical sense under some legislation or protocol or something? I would have thought that "single" just refers to a person's current status as married or not married. If a person was married but their spouse died, they are now single.

The term 'single' here is in the context of a person who either has never been married or has had their marriage dissolved.
 
after reading a biography of wallis recently, i thought that BP had no right to take the style away from her and technically she could have been called HRH. this always confused me...if technically one can use the style regardless of what BP wants, then why didn't the entitled recipient just go ahead and take the style. there must be more to the story than meets the eye.
 
Well, I think the fact of the matter is that Wallis was entitled to use the HRH but this was illegally denied to her because it technically became a morganatic marriage. If there'd be no denial, she'd have been HRH The Duchess of Windsor and I assume, a Princess of the UK. The more you look into that, the more shaky it seems. For example, though she was denied HRH in Britain, did that apply to the colonies?
 
Well, I think the fact of the matter is that Wallis was entitled to use the HRH but this was illegally denied to her because it technically became a morganatic marriage. If there'd be no denial, she'd have been HRH The Duchess of Windsor and I assume, a Princess of the UK. The more you look into that, the more shaky it seems. For example, though she was denied HRH in Britain, did that apply to the colonies?

Correct. A marriage to a son of the sovereign means you become a Princess and Royal Highness. If The Sovereign does not create a peerage for your husband, your style is HRH The Princess X.

Wallis was "Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor" which is the rank and style of a non-royal peer. If they had any children, they would have taken their style after their mother and become Lord/Lady Windsor, rather than the usual rank and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as grandchildren of George V.

Regarding protocol, when The Duke was appointed Governor-General of The Bahamas, the Secretary for Colonial Affairs sent a telegram to officials prior to their arrival stating The Duchess was not entitled to a curtsey and must be addressed as "Your Grace".
 
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.

It would if their husbands remained HRH and Princes of the UK. The wives of Princes of the UK take precedence as Princesses, not as the wives of peers.
 
after reading a biography of wallis recently, i thought that BP had no right to take the style away from her and technically she could have been called HRH. this always confused me...if technically one can use the style regardless of what BP wants, then why didn't the entitled recipient just go ahead and take the style. there must be more to the story than meets the eye.

Their staff and close friends always addressed her as Your Royal Highness, but this was a personal courtesy to The Duke. When he was not present, Wallis generally asked people to address her as Your Grace, which was the proper form of address.

In their final years, it was said The Queen was willing to put the past behind them and issue new letters patent granting Wallis her rightful style. But The Queen Mother remained adamantly opposed and The Queen declined to revisit the matter.
 
wow...i'm amazed that HM was willing to issue new letters, i'd not heard that before. i do remember reading about the staff calling her HRH. as the wife of a prince though, wouldn't protocol dictate that people curtsey to her?
 
Curtseys for the Duchess of Windsor

wow...i'm amazed that HM was willing to issue new letters, i'd not heard that before. i do remember reading about the staff calling her HRH. as the wife of a prince though, wouldn't protocol dictate that people curtsey to her?


There were some people who curtseyed to the Duchess of Windsor because they wanted to please the Duke. Some did, some did not. Lady Diana Cooper did and some other English people did, but again it was to get points with the Duke.
 
And of course, the Duchess was always HRH to their staff.
 
It would if their husbands remained HRH and Princes of the UK. The wives of Princes of the UK take precedence as Princesses, not as the wives of peers.

Only by the grace of the Sovereign, however. It is the prerogative of the Queen, if she wants, to remove the styles and titles the wives have as Royal Highnesses and Princesses. She does not have the power, however, to make the Duchess of Kent anything less than the Duchess of Kent, for instance.

Morganatic marriages involve the denial of styles which one is entitled to. One cannot be entitled to the styles/titles of Royal Highness or Princess of the United Kingdom, as they are totally and completely the prerogative of the Sovereign.

Though the grant of peerages is the prerogative of the sovereign, the style of their wives, however, is not. Since Wallis was the Duchess of Windsor, and hypothetical children were not taken out of the succession for the Dukedom, their marriage cannot have been morganatic, as a morganatic marriage involves the denial of styles that are the wife's by right, not by the grace of the Sovereign.
 
Wallis was unquestionably morganatic as Her Grace and a Duchess. She married a Prince of the UK and Royal Highness and should have automatically assumed the rank, title and precedence of her husband. The King denied her the style and title of HRH Princess of the UK in 1937.

Yes, she was Wallis, Duchess of Windsor as her style and title, but this was inferior to her husband. If they had children, they too would have held inferior rank as Lord X Windsor, instead of HRH Prince X of Windsor.

If that isn't morganatic (which was exactly what the German duchies and kingdoms used to do), I don't know what is. Anyone can be created a Peer, but not everyone becomes a Prince or Princess.
 
Charles isn't considered a widower by the C of E. Since the church recognises civil divorce, Charles was considered a single man again after his 1996 divorce. The church states that in its information on remarrying divorced couples. If a person is divorced then they are to be considered as single. So since the church considered him single, then he would not be a widower as at the time of his previous wife's death they weren't married. A single man can't be a widower.
If he was seen as a single man after his divorce and Camilla a single woman, there would not have been any problem having a full church ceremony, which as we all know, there was.

The church may publish on it's site that any divorced person is treated as 'single' and that they recognise civil divorces, but in reality many of it's clergy refuse to perform a wedding ceremony if one or both parties were divorced.
 
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.
 
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.

The Earl of St Andrews married in a Registry office in Cambridge, that's in England. Princess Michael of Kent married in Austria because originally she wanted to get married in a church there, a connection with her Austrian aristocratic roots. But the catholic church ( which does not recognise civil divorce wouldn't grant her an annulment in time ) They had already organised a wedding date, Lady Helen Windsor was to have been their bridesmaid and Marie-Christine had bought a wedding dress. Since the annulment didn't come through in time they married in the registry office. Lady Helen had to be a witness and Marie-Christine ended up wearing her wedding dress at the party that was given for them much later in the UK. ( Eventually she got her annulment and she and Michael had a catholic ceremony in the UK but this was much later. It was important to her as it meant that she could receive Communion in the catholic church)

Before Charles and Camilla married, there was a legal challenge to their marriage but it was dismissed by the judges. Their marriage is legal, the constitutional experts have ruled on it.
 
Also, in relation to a royal marriage being legal or not, why would princess Anne have to marry in the Church of Scotland?
Was it to make it legal? Then how is the Charles camilla marriage legal?
It's all very confusing indeed:eek:
 
If he was seen as a single man after his divorce and Camilla a single woman, there would not have been any problem having a full church ceremony, which as we all know, there was.

The church may publish on it's site that any divorced person is treated as 'single' and that they recognise civil divorces, but in reality many of it's clergy refuse to perform a wedding ceremony if one or both parties were divorced.

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.
 
Also, in relation to a royal marriage being legal or not, why would princess Anne have to marry in the Church of Scotland?
Was it to make it legal? Then how is the Charles camilla marriage legal?
It's all very confusing indeed:eek:

Anne married in 1992 and she wanted a church wedding. The Church of Scotland allows divorced people to marry in the church. The Church of England didn't change their ruling until 2003, C & C married in 2005 and their marriage is legal as the constitutional judges have already ruled that it is before they got married.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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. :flowers:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom