Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Monika_]

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.

 

[iowabelle]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[Lemon Lyman]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[Lemon Lyman]

Definately been changed went to a few cathloic weddings in the last 10yrs and no need for registrar anymore

 

[Skydragon]

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!

 

[Elspeth]

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.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

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.

 

[Sister Morphine]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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?

 

[Skydragon]

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 [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"canonical form'[/FONT][/FONT].

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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 [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"canonical form'[/FONT][/FONT].

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

 

[Skydragon]

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.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]I found this on a Catholic website [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]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[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Charlotte1]

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)

 

[Roslyn]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]I found this on a Catholic website [/FONT][/FONT]

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.

 

[kimebear]

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.

 

[brandon]

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.

 

[brandon]

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.

 

[jcbcode99]

Yes, it's necessary. However how often do we witness the civil ceremony of an heir to the throne?

Then perhaps you should have stated "British Royalty". Not meaning to beat a dead horse here but having been soundly "thrashed" at various times for not completely writing out my thoughts (we are not mindreaders, after all ) I want to spare you the anguish I have dealt with thinking I inadvertantly was rude to someone or that I did not clarifiy my thoughts and some persons were offended or confused and a little bit of a back and forth, ahem, "discussion" ensued. Just an FYI, Brandon! I've really enjoyed your posts, BTW

 

[Emeralds and Opals]

Secret documents cast doubt on legality of Charles's wedding | Mail Online

 

[Skydragon]

Secret documents cast doubt on legality of Charles's wedding | Mail Online

Boring, The Libs come out with this story time and again, especially when yet another of their candidates has lost his deposit in a local byelection. What they seem to be forgetting is that they fully support the European Human Rights bill, under whose legislation permission had to be granted, or does the legislation only apply when they want it to?

 

[scooter]

Very interesting. Of course, they HAD to have a civil wedding because of the divorce issue. I quote 'Life with the Queen' page 51 "But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could be arranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment' (my bolding). So if the civil wedding was not legal, then they are not legally married? It will be interesting when that book comes out. As for the story coming out time and again...where there's smoke.....

 

[milla Ca]

Boring,

Coudln´t agree more... and surely it isn´t a pure accident that this ´news´ returned again only some days before Charles´ 60th birthday...but this repeat every half year does not make it more true or more interesting or it isn´t filled with more substance this time...

 

[muriel]

Coudln´t agree more... and surely it isn´t a pure accident that this ´news´ returned again only some days before Charles´ 60th birthday...but this repeat every half year does not make it more true or more interesting or it isn´t filled with more substance this time...

Quite right.

So if what has been said is true: they can't marry in church, and they can't marry in a civil ceremony - so how does it matter to most of us. They were hardly expected to produce any royal bastards, were they!

 

[Skydragon]

Very interesting. Of course, they HAD to have a civil wedding because of the divorce issue. I quote 'Life with the Queen' page 51 "But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could be arranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment' (my bolding). So if the civil wedding was not legal, then they are not legally married? It will be interesting when that book comes out. As for the story coming out time and again...where there's smoke.....

No, they didn't have to have a civil ceremony, where did you say you had read that, (not the Lib Dem handout surely)?

While Hoey may be an interesting read, I do have to wonder what evidence he gives to back up his statement regarding Rowan Williams likely decision on a question he wasn't asked or Charles' knowledge of Rowan Williams likely thoughts.

Once again, it seems to have been missed, you cannot have legislation in regard to everyone except XYZ, that is not legal under British or European legislation.

Where there's smoke, does that apply to all ex royals as well?

 

[Skydragon]

Coudln´t agree more... and surely it isn´t a pure accident that this ´news´ returned again only some days before Charles´ 60th birthday...but this repeat every half year does not make it more true or more interesting or it isn´t filled with more substance this time...

They probably hadn't even realised about Charles birthday!

For those to whom it might be important they marry in church (which church, which religion), (the Lib Dems perhaps), easy, a full blown ENGLISH ceremony as soon as Charles takes over, but before the coronation, a huge taxpayer funded ceremony!

 

[scooter]

Where did I read it? In the book cited. On the page cited. The book you knew the author of, which I did not mention. To answer your question, Brian Hoey, according to the bio on the jacket "has been a writer, journalist and broadcaster for more than 40 years. Known as a respected and autoritative 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 andmagazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These incluse The Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and Her Family, Prince William, and Snowdon" This in NOt Kitty Kelly.

Elspeth, this is exactly my point. When a book has been exhaustively vetted by the publisher to avoid law suits, and a TRF member responds with 'what evidence did he give', what is the official position of this forum on what is considered to be an authentic/reliable/quotable source? Because there really isn't much point in researching the information if the response is going to be 'Was there a statement from the Palace? If not it's an urban legend'.

 

[Princess Eudoxia]

Why wouldn't they have married in church if it wasn't a problem? Especially as Charles is going to be head of the Church of England. Wasn't the civil service seen as a middle ground, so to speak?