Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[sophie25]

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.

 

[Duchess]

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!

 

[Skydragon]

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

 

[Roslyn]

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

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[Elspeth]

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.

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.

 

[Russophile]

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. . .)

 

[Warren]

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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!

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

 

[diamondBrg]

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!

OK and now I am REALLY confused.

HM is HEAD of the Church of England, members of the Royal Family, at least in line of secession cannot marry Roman Catholics BUT HM can attend and I assume take Communion at another separate Church?????

 

[Elspeth]

Have a look at what the royal family website has to say. Since the Church of England is the Established Church in England and the Church of Scotland is the Established Church in Scotland, and since the Queen is Queen of both countries, she pretty much has to be a member of both churches. She isn't Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but she's a member. It's sort of like the Prince of Wales's senior title in Scotland being Duke of Rothesay regardless of what he's known as in England.

The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Church

 

[diamondBrg]

Have a look at what the royal family website has to say. Since the Church of England is the Established Church in England and the Church of Scotland is the Established Church in Scotland, and since the Queen is Queen of both countries, she pretty much has to be a member of both churches. She isn't Supreme Governor of the Church of Scotland, but she's a member. It's sort of like the Prince of Wales's senior title in Scotland being Duke of Rothesay regardless of what he's known as in England.

The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Church

THANK YOU! That was very interesting reading and I learned alot.

 

[sophie25]

It didn't matter that the Earl of St Andrews was losing his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. The issue was the legality of his marraige ie he was told the marraige would not be legal if it took place in a registry office in England thus he had to go to Scotland.

 

[CourtSprite]

It didn't matter that the Earl of St Andrews was losing his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. The issue was the legality of his marraige ie he was told the marraige would not be legal if it took place in a registry office in England thus he had to go to Scotland.

Which made me think for a moment, uh-oh! is the Charles/Camilla marriage legal?

Frankly, I was surprised the marriage happened. But I suppose it was the best solution to giving the couple some privacy and chance at normalcy. Something that was always a problem, even after Charles and Diana divorced, followed by her untimely death. Personally, I think Camilla gives Charles the "mother factor" he couldn't get enough of with HRM.

Certainly, with the benefit of hindsight, Charles could have handled his personal life better. But you need to remember, attitudes and protocol with the Royal Court have only just started to allow more freedom to its members. I wouldn't trade places with any of them!

 

[Elspeth]

It didn't matter that the Earl of St Andrews was losing his place in the line of succession for marrying a Catholic. The issue was the legality of his marraige ie he was told the marraige would not be legal if it took place in a registry office in England thus he had to go to Scotland.

The Earl of St Andrews isn't an HRH. If he can't marry in a register office in England, that starts eliminating an awful lot of people (probably at least in the thousands) who happen to be distant descendants of monarchs.

 

[scooter]

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.

I am quoting here from page 51 of 'Life with the Queen' by Brian Hoey, written shortly after the Charles and Camilla wedding:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, was known to have severe reservations about the union, even though he agreed, after private consultations with The Queen, to conduct the service of blessing (or dedication) in St. George's Chapel following the civil ceremony outside the castle walls. If the Archbishop's expression was anything to go by during the service, it appeared that he had retained is doubts and was merely performing a duty demanded by the Queen of the senior cleric of the Church of England.

But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr. Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could bearranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and that the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment. But Prince Charles did have a private audience with the Archbishop in the weeks leading to the ceremony and persuaded His Grace to allow a Windsor blessing in spite of his obvious misgivings. The Archbishop was adamant that the service in St. George's Chapel should be one of repentance on the part of the bride and bridegroom, not a glorification of the marriage, which is why on the day itself, he refused to wear his full State robes and appeared instead in the simplest vestments he possessed, with the full agreement of the Queen'

I have bolded the portions which lead me to believe that all is not so rosey with the highest cleric of the CofE regarding the remarriage of the heir to the throne to his divorced ladylove. If it's up to the individual cleric, and this is how he regards the marriage and is the fellow who performs the Coronation, I dont think Charles is out of the woods yet. Perhaps if Charles does indeed ascend the throne without the Duchess, but I dont see Dr. Williams being willing to annoint Camilla as Queen, given his views. There is however no presedent for the wife of the King to not be crowned alongside. Quite a conundrum.

*closes laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*

 

[Empress]

No bullets here! I fully agree with your assesment.

Now, isn't the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland pretty much the same thing in everything but name?

 

[Laura Elizabeth]

No bullets Scooter (nice summation, btw), but didn't George IV keep his wife from being crowned?

 

[Skydragon]

No bullets here! I fully agree with your assesment.
Now, isn't the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland pretty much the same thing in everything but name?

Absolutely not! HM is not head of it, only a member.

With a little luck, if the CoE is still going in 20 or so years, Rowan Williams might have learned a little of the christian forgiveness he preaches.

 

[wbenson]

I have bolded the portions which lead me to believe that all is not so rosey with the highest cleric of the CofE regarding the remarriage of the heir to the throne to his divorced ladylove. If it's up to the individual cleric, and this is how he regards the marriage and is the fellow who performs the Coronation, I dont think Charles is out of the woods yet. Perhaps if Charles does indeed ascend the throne without the Duchess, but I dont see Dr. Williams being willing to annoint Camilla as Queen, given his views. There is however no presedent for the wife of the King to not be crowned alongside. Quite a conundrum.

*closes laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*

What is the authority of the author in such matters? It's very easy to write something in a book.

Even if the Archbishop refused, there is still another Archbishop, several Bishops, and probably hundreds of clergy in the country, many of whom would never dream of passing up the opportunity.

 

[scooter]

What is the authority of the author in such matters? It's very easy to write something in a book.

Even if the Archbishop refused, there is still another Archbishop, several Bishops, and probably hundreds of clergy in the country, many of whom would never dream of passing up the opportunity.

To quote from the Author's biography on the back flap, he is:
Brian Hoey has been a writer, journalist and broadcaster for more than 40 years. Known as a respected and authoritative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the royal family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers and magazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These include The Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and her Family, Prince William and Snowdon. Married, with 3 grown up children and 5 grandchildren, Brian Hoey lives with his wife in South Wales.

Over all it is a very complementary book, with many quotes from his interviews with his royal subjects.*

As to whether it must be the Archbishop of Canterbury who performs the coronation/s, I dont believe that they can 'choose' a more sympathetic officiant. Elspeth, doesnt it have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the highest prelate of the Church of England?

*Little Royalty Pun

 

[wbenson]

As to whether it must be the Archbishop of Canterbury who performs the coronation/s, I dont believe that they can 'choose' a more sympathetic officiant. Elspeth, doesnt it have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the highest prelate of the Church of England?

The Archbishop is the highest prelate by the grace of the Sovereign. I would imagine that that grace would fall by the wayside pretty quickly if he made the (stupid) decision to refuse to do a coronation. All of a sudden the Bishop of London becomes the Archbishop of London, and woohoo, there's a new highest prelate. The Sovereign could outunorthodox the clergy at every turn if need be.

Since the Archbishop can be fired (on the advice of the government; see section B of The Crown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992 ), the main test for a coronation would be the elected government's wishes. If it wants one, it happens.

EDIT: Never mind about the second part. I misunderstood what a convocation is.

 

[scooter]

No bullets here! I fully agree with your assesment.

Now, isn't the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland pretty much the same thing in everything but name?

Empress, are you Ridgefield Ct or Ridgefield NJ? If Ct, we are very close geographically.

 

[wbenson]

No bullets Scooter (nice summation, btw), but didn't George IV keep his wife from being crowned?

Indeed he did. She was left at the doors begging for entry.

 

[scooter]

Somehow I dont see that happening this time!

 

[ysbel]

I am quoting here from page 51 of 'Life with the Queen' by Brian Hoey, written shortly after the Charles and Camilla wedding:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, was known to have severe reservations about the union, even though he agreed, after private consultations with The Queen, to conduct the service of blessing (or dedication) in St. George's Chapel following the civil ceremony outside the castle walls. If the Archbishop's expression was anything to go by during the service, it appeared that he had retained is doubts and was merely performing a duty demanded by the Queen of the senior cleric of the Church of England.

But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr. Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could bearranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and that the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment. But Prince Charles did have a private audience with the Archbishop in the weeks leading to the ceremony and persuaded His Grace to allow a Windsor blessing in spite of his obvious misgivings. The Archbishop was adamant that the service in St. George's Chapel should be one of repentance on the part of the bride and bridegroom, not a glorification of the marriage, which is why on the day itself, he refused to wear his full State robes and appeared instead in the simplest vestments he possessed, with the full agreement of the Queen'

I have bolded the portions which lead me to believe that all is not so rosey with the highest cleric of the CofE regarding the remarriage of the heir to the throne to his divorced ladylove. If it's up to the individual cleric, and this is how he regards the marriage and is the fellow who performs the Coronation, I dont think Charles is out of the woods yet. Perhaps if Charles does indeed ascend the throne without the Duchess, but I dont see Dr. Williams being willing to annoint Camilla as Queen, given his views. There is however no presedent for the wife of the King to not be crowned alongside. Quite a conundrum.

*closes laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*

No bullets but just a statement that the Archbishop of Canterbury distanced himself from Hoey's assessment shortly after it was published.

Who knows? Maybe the Archbishop didn't want to be forced by Charles and Camilla into approving both Charles and Camilla to ascend the throne and then crowning them in a coronation but very important prelates are pragmatic people by nature and the Archbishop may have disliked even more being used as a tool by people who are determined to deny Charles and Camilla the throne. I think the Archbishop is a master politician and as a master politician (and these prelates have to be master politicians to survive) he wants to keep his options open. For him to publically commit one way or another when the Queen has many years left on the throne would be political suicide if the public opinion turned against his stance (whichever that stance may be)

When you get to the level of Kings and Princes, Bishops and Archbishops and Prime Ministers, politics plays a major role.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Indeed he did. She was left at the doors begging for entry.

But then, she must have known that would happen. As Princess of Wales, Caroline of Brunswick had been living abroard for years, thanks to a very generous allowance she received if she stayed away from England. On learning that her estranged husband had ascended the throne, she returned even though she was promised an even higher allowance if she stayed where she was. But she came to London to force her husband and the new king reacted as he did.

 

[Elspeth]

To quote from the Author's biography on the back flap, he is:
Brian Hoey has been a writer, journalist and broadcaster for more than 40 years. Known as a respected and authoritative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the royal family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers and magazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These include The Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and her Family, Prince William and Snowdon. Married, with 3 grown up children and 5 grandchildren, Brian Hoey lives with his wife in South Wales.

Over all it is a very complementary book, with many quotes from his interviews with his royal subjects.*

As to whether it must be the Archbishop of Canterbury who performs the coronation/s, I dont believe that they can 'choose' a more sympathetic officiant. Elspeth, doesnt it have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the highest prelate of the Church of England?

*Little Royalty Pun

Far as I know, the coronation has to be officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, if for whatever reason he refuses and if the Archbishop of York doesn't have the same reservations he does, I'm not sure if he could step in and officiate or not. The scenario where the highest members of the CofE hierarchy were that much at odds would be very unlikely.

 

[branchg]

No bullets Scooter (nice summation, btw), but didn't George IV keep his wife from being crowned?

She was refused entry into Westminster Abbey by order of The King, but he lost his battle with Parliament to strip her precedence and title as Queen Consort.