Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[sirhon11234]

Poor Caroline of Brunswick didn't she die a couple of days after that.

 

[Warren]

George IV's coronation was 19 July 1821 and Queen Caroline died 7 August.

 

[sophie25]

"The Earl of St Andrews isn't an HRH. If he can't 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."-Elspeth

In response to the above, I don't know how far out a relative you have to be for you to still be considered a member of the Royal Family in the eyes of the law. The point is that Lord St. Andrews, at the time of his marraige in 1988, was advised to go to Scotland because he was considered close enough to the throne for it not to be legal for him to marry in a register office in England. So why come 2005 were we informed, by SOME quarters, that this wasn't the law at all whilst others maintain that it was and still is? Whether some people like it or not the legality of Prince Charles' marraige is not an open and shut case. There are and always will be doubts hanging over it but these are likely to be voiced more openly when he and Camilla are dead.

 

[Skydragon]

Church law and thinking was different in 1988 - 19 years ago.

In 1988, I think you would have been hard pressed to find any clergyman willing to conduct a church wedding for any non royal couple where one party was divorced. To add to that problem, horror of horrors, she was a divorced catholic!
I would imagine that being catholic, she was keen to have a religous ceremony of some sort and that was not going to happen in England.

 

[sophie25]

I am not talking about Church law I am talking about secular law-thee law- in relation to the legality of civil marraiges in England and Wales involving members of the Royal Family.

 

[Skydragon]

It is possible that he was not 'advised' of anything. After all I haven't seen a statement to that effect from him, his parents, BP or any governmental body. If you have a link?....

What did strike me as strange, was that in Scotland he could have had a church wedding and chose not to.

As, by marrying a catholic, he was giving up his place in the line, would there have been any need to stop him marrying in an English registry office, which throws further doubt onto the 'he was advised'.

 

[sophie25]

When he married in Scotland the media/news reports at the time all said that it took place there because he couldn't legally marry in a registry office in England. I know this because I live in Scotland and I watched the news reports about the wedding.

 

[Skydragon]

When he married in Scotland the media/news reports at the time all said that it took place there because he couldn't legally marry in a registry office in England. I know this because I watched the news reports at the time and as I've stated in a previous post the book "My Young Friends" by Valerie Garner also confirms this.

So no actual official statement on this, just media hype and an author. As far as I know, the laws covering registry offices and the conditions needing to be met are exactly the same as in England. It is only the churches that differ in that respect.

 

[sophie25]

There was no media "hype" as I recall, the fact that he couldn't legally marry in England was reported as a matter of circumstance with no sensationalism attached to it.

 

[Skydragon]

However, the 'he was advised' only seems to stem from what was reported and as we all know, may not be fact.

 

[sophie25]

"Feet stuck in mud" is how I am starting to feel about this thread. For those of you who don't want to face up to the fact that Charles and Camilla's marraige is seriously questionable in the eyes of the law carry on as you will. For those of you who are willing to accept that there are serious doubts do a little research and I bet it won't take you long to discover the anomalies regarding it.

 

[BeatrixFan]

With respect, whether the marriage is questionable or not is very old news. They are married, they are members of the Royal Family and I can't see how a few posts on a forum is going to change that.

 

[wbenson]

"Feet stuck in mud" is how I am starting to feel about this thread. For those of you who don't want to face up to the fact that Charles and Camilla's marraige is seriously questionable in the eyes of the law carry on as you will. For those of you who are willing to accept that there are serious doubts do a little research and I bet it won't take you long to discover the anomalies regarding it.

There are indeed anomalies. The entire situation was an anomaly, nobody doubts that. The Lord Chancellor said it was legal. Therefore, the legality is intact. The opinions of others in that matter are quite irrelevant.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is one law that people are forgetting that was passed between 1988 and 2005 - the European Human Rights law.

That is the one that I believe was used to change the interpretation of the legality of Royal Weddings in Registry offices.

Under the original 1836 and then subsequent 1949 Marriage Acts a royal wasn't legally married if married in a civil ceremony. Those acts applied in 1988 when the Earl of St Andrews was married.

However the later Human Rights Act of 2000 changed things.

To quote from Lord Falconer's official text to the House of Lords when this was raised at the time of the wedding:

"The Lord Chancellor, in a written statement to the Lords, said that he was giving details of his legal view, 'in light of recent interest in the law surrounding royal marriages.'

Dipping in and out of the 1936 and 1949 statutes, he waited until the end of his statement to pull the Human Rights Act from the legal canon as a final weapon.

'We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted whereever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marriage (article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (article 14)', he said.

'This in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 act beyond doubt.'"

This was taken from The Guardian article published at the time:
Human Rights Act to the rescue of wedding | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited


There were some people after that who still believed that a short piece of legislation was needed but that didn't happen because the legal advice to Parliament and therefore to the Queen and Archbishop of Canterbury was that the marriage was legal.

All objections to the marriage were dismissed by the Registrar.

Thus the marriage is legal and people who can't see that are the ones with their heads in the sand.

Other papers reported the same thing at the time: That the Human Rights Act with it specific mention of the right to marry and that legislation must be interpreted that way along with no discrimination (which raised an interesting point to me - could that be interpreted that the religious ban on Catholic marriage and the succession is discriminatory and therefore under the Human Rights Act no longer applies??)

If you wish to see other links referring to the story about Charles and Camilla I have included a few other links.

BBC NEWS | UK | Registrar allows Charles' wedding
The New York Times > International > Europe > Prince Charles Postpones Wedding to Attend Funeral
BBC NEWS | UK | Is Royal wedding a human right?

 

[Elspeth]

In response to the above, I don't know how far out a relative you have to be for you to still be considered a member of the Royal Family in the eyes of the law. The point is that Lord St. Andrews, at the time of his marraige in 1988, was advised to go to Scotland because he was considered close enough to the throne for it not to be legal for him to marry in a register office in England.

Your source being?

I've just read the report of the marriage in Majesty Magazine, and it said no word about problems with the legality of register office weddings in England. I assume that if this was something that had been reported in the press at the time, it'd have found its way into the Majesty article.

 

[Laura Elizabeth]

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.

Thank you. I could have looked it up myself LOL - I have since

 

[jcbcode99]

{comment about deleted post removed - Elspeth}
As for the marriage, I just wanted to say that I saw a recent photo of Charles and Camilla http://i23.tinypic.com/eg7oti.jpg and they both look so relaxed and at ease with each other. I can't really recall seeing Charles like that with Diana except when the boys were quite young; you can tell Charles and Camilla really get on well. It's a nice sign for normal women, when you think about it. Here he is, the Prince of Wales--had Diana, arguably one of the most dynamic and beautiful women of the century, and he was miserable. Camilla, a charming and lovely lady in her own right, is his one true love, because she is who she is and her personality is straightforward and true. I like her more than I liked Diana because Camilla seems to be more real to me, and Diana was more like an illusion.

 

[Picmajik]

other general church information

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

The Church of Scotland is also what we in the US know as Presbyterian as opposed to the CoE which is Anglican/Episcopalian in the US. Some churches will call themselves the Anglican community in America to let you know they are closer to the CoE instead of the more liberal branches of the American Episcopal church. I am not a member of either but have been researching both as I am considering joining either one in the future (but that is a long story for another board and not relevant to this topic). I hope this helps, diamondBrg.

 

[Elspeth]

I've split out the "do British taxpayers think the monarchy is worth keeping?" discussion to its own thread, which you can find here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/monarchy-worth-keeping-14557.html

Let's please keep this thread on topic from now on.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator

 

[Sister Morphine]

With respect, whether the marriage is questionable or not is very old news. They are married, they are members of the Royal Family and I can't see how a few posts on a forum is going to change that.

I wasn't aware their marriage was questionable. Being an American, I'm not familiar with the way marriage and re-marriage in the royal family is dealt with. That being said, I do agree with you. They're married, I haven't heard anything about there being issues with it, so it is how it is.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I wasn't aware their marriage was questionable. Being an American, I'm not familiar with the way marriage and re-marriage in the royal family is dealt with. That being said, I do agree with you. They're married, I haven't heard anything about there being issues with it, so it is how it is.

Napoleon and Josephine come to mind. When the pope arrived to crown them, he said that they are not married in the eyes of the church because they had only a registry wedding. Thus, a priest performed a secret church wedding and that was that. Guess Charles and Camilla will find a priest in case they need one.

 

[Genia]

I don't know if this belongs or if it's allowed, remove if it's not. Do you guys think if there was no Diana in Charles life (Or for that matter, someone like her. I.e. pushed into his life), would he have married Camilla earlier?

Prince Charles couldn't marry Camilla, because Camilla was sleeping around and was not a virgin. She lost her virginity at an early age. If there was no Diana, there would have been someone else. He wasn't short of women falling at his feet, and him having his way with them. Afterall, he is a Scorpio!!!

 

[milla Ca]

Afterall, he is a Scorpio!!!

And you are a reader of bad tabloid strories, i guess!

 

[hornsen]

Prince Charles couldn't marry Camilla, because Camilla was sleeping around and was not a virgin. She lost her virginity at an early age.

I´m sorry but, who told you that. "Sleeping around" can be seen as an embarrassement. Only a few people know for sure about her sexual life. One should be careful about it.

 

[Avalon]

Prince Charles couldn't marry Camilla, because Camilla was sleeping around and was not a virgin. She lost her virginity at an early age. If there was no Diana, there would have been someone else. He wasn't short of women falling at his feet, and him having his way with them. Afterall, he is a Scorpio!!!

"Sleeping around" is a very strong word, you know. The only 2 men we are sure Camilla had relationships with, are her husbands.
She must have chosen her partners well, if they are so loyal to her after all these years, I'm sure some of the tabloids would pay quite a nice price for a laundry story about the Duchess.

By the way, I'm a Scorpio too, so that particular comment about the Prince of Wales didn't go too well with me.

 

[sirhon11234]

Prince Charles couldn't marry Camilla, because Camilla was sleeping around and was not a virgin. She lost her virginity at an early age. If there was no Diana, there would have been someone else. He wasn't short of women falling at his feet, and him having his way with them. Afterall, he is a Scorpio!!!

Excuse me I'am a scorpio.

 

[Elspeth]

Lucky old you...

 

[scooter]

Let's not forget the time was 1972 in the which probobly still qualifies as the swinging 60's. Let's not say sleeping around, but perhaps sexually experienced. I am quoting here from 'The Windsor Knot' by Chistopher Wilson " So very different from the fledgling Camilla Shand, whose charm for the opposite sex was a rumbustious earthiness, rather than a goddess's aloofness. She was not related to the dukes of England, nor to any foreign royal houses - two areas where Charles might expect to find a future bride. She was not the possessor of a personal fortune. In addition she was known to have enjoyed a lively love affair with an army officer called Andrew Parker-Bowles, at 32 eight years her senior, which those that knew the couple predicted that it would end in marriage.' Also, there was very little time between the infamous ' My great grand mother and your great great grand mother were lovers so how about it? 'and her actually taking him back to her flat for 'desert'. I think that alone would have struck her from the list of possible princess brides. Well, we cant go back in time and luckily for C and C they were able to marry eventually.

 

[sirhon11234]

Well she is his second wife now, so those restrictions preventing her from marrying Charles seems so ancient now.

Lucky old you...

 

[lilibet80]

The marriage

I once saw a biography of her in which one of her former schoolmates said that although she wasn't very pretty she was able to get any boy she wanted. She had a lot of appeal even then. I happen to admire the way she has comported herself through everything. She has behaved with discretion and dignity and for the first time in my recollection Prince Charles looks happy, relaxed and at peace.