Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Elspeth]

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

In England they probably did. They could have married in Scotland like Princess Anne, but the CofE guidelines on remarriage of divorced people do seem to frown on remarriage to someone who was instrumental in the breakup of the first marriage. Even though a lot is left to the judgement of the particular clergyman, it would look a lot like special treatment for Charles to be able to do something that most Britons wouldn't be able to do, and that wouldn't have helped his popularity in the least.

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.

Maybe someone who has a copy of the book could tell us if there are footnotes to that effect. I might have a copy somewhere but I'm not sure which pile of books to start looking in.

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.

I thought there was a law (which has apparently been superseded by later legislation) which specifically excluded the royal family from being able to contract a civil marriage. Apparently when the law was drafted nobody gave any thought to the possibility of a royal being an atheist and not wanting to marry in church.

 

[Elspeth]

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'.

I don't know that we have any really authoritative biographies of this period of the Prince's life. Brian Hoey seems to be a reputable royal biographer but I don't think he's authoritative enough that if he says one thing and other people are saying the opposite, you can necessarily say that he's right and they're wrong. In this case you can just, as you've done, point to the evidence in his book to back up your opinion, but if someone else comes up with a royal biography saying that Charles consulted Dr Williams about a church wedding, it's going to be one person's word against the other's unless Charles or Dr Williams make a statement about it.

The scenario could have been anything from Charles knowing because Dr Williams had told him without being asked to Charles knowing because he or the Queen had made discreet and indirect enquiries. The Church is fairly clear on not wanting to get involved in a situation where a man wants to marry a woman with whom he was having an affair during his previous marriage - on the other hand, the previous Archbishop is on the record as saying that Charles and Camilla should marry, so apparently Dr Carey at least thought a wedding of some sort would be possible, although he could have been thinking about a wedding in the Church of Scotland (the solution Princess Anne came up with for her second marriage).

 

[Jacknch]

The Problem with the Church of England and indeed the laws of this country is that it says one thing then does something completely different. If the CoE is against remarriage by divorcees then equally it should be against the blessings of marriage by divorcees. It is legal in this this country for people to contract a civil marriage ceremony and quite simply that is what Charles and Camilla did. Unless the Act of Settlement specifically states that an heir to the throme cannot marry A) a divorcee or B) in a civil ceremony or there is sufficient law to prevent an heir from marrying under such circumstances then the tabloids should button up! I would have thought the heir to the throne could do whatever he likes - if it's good enough for the people then its good enough for him!

 

[Elspeth]

The Act of Settlement didn't cover civil marriages because they didn't exist back then. It wasn't till the Marriage Act of 1836 that civil weddings were allowed, and the royal family was specifically excluded.

There's some information about it here, in an article written by the Lord Chancellor:

Department for Constitutional Affairs - Speeches - Parliamentary Statements

It says that the 1836 Act contains the statement that the Act ""… shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family".

According to that article, the 1836 Act was repealed by the 1949 Marriage Act and the 1953 Registration Service Act; the 1949 Act contains the wording, "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family."

 

[Jo of Palatine]

You're right Elspeth, but what Skydragon meant was that as soon as the UK accepted European Human rights laws as supreme laws, this part about the exclusion of a group of people due to their birth was void. especially as the background of the statement is religiously motivated and thus is in conflict with the right to choose your religion.

I think it is absolutely clear that Charles could have gone to the European Courts with his case if he was not allowed to marry legally in a non-religious ceremony and that he would have won and be granted permission. But that would have really opened the said "can of worms" - what about prince Michael and the others who lost their place in the succession due to marrying Catholics? What about the Act of Settlement? What about the fact that the Headship of State in Britain is governed by inheritance, so excludes the majority of people?
If parliament and government really started to deal with these topics according to the European laws, it could lead to serious consequences noone knows about beforehand. And who wants that when all they wanted in the first place was to allow a man to marry the woman he chose?

 

[Laurentienne]

I have absolutely no respect for Charles what so ever, and they never should have married. He has married a mistress and they are both cheap in every way possible. I don't even see them as royal even though they are. It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on. I still don't respect them, and I'm happy that they are not next in line for the throne in the country I live.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.

 

[Skydragon]

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---snipped---

The advertising for books is designed to sell the author enough to make you want to buy the book, as for Hoey, I did not question his works (although you seem to have chosen to view it as such), but how he could possibly know a persons thoughts on a question that he says was never asked.

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'.

Lets get away from the misquoted 'was there a statement from the palace, if not it's an urban legend', that you seem to state so often. Is there actually anyones post, other than yours that says that? In your post, which I was questioning, you did not make clear where you were quoting from the book or your own beliefs and that, to me is important.

Publishers, as I am sure you know, only check whether they can be prosecuted under certain laws, with the responsibility laid at the feet of the author, otherwise you are suggesting that every single non fiction book is fact and that would be rather amusing.

 

[Skydragon]

---snipped---It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.

Good to know that you don't rely on little things like facts or knowing them!

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have absolutely no respect for Charles what so ever, and they never should have married. He has married a mistress and they are both cheap in every way possible. I don't even see them as royal even though they are. It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on. I still don't respect them, and I'm happy that they are not next in line for the throne in the country I live.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.

I am the exact opposite.

I respect Charles and Camilla for the loyalty and love they have shown each other in very trying times. I respect them for the way they have conducted themselves as a royal couple. I absolutely love the way Camilla has behaved as the wife of the heir to the throne - so right in every way - supportive of her husband and never trying to upstage him.

I am just so glad that he is the heir to the throne where I live.

As for his son - I will become a republican the day he becomes King.

 

[Nico]

I have absolutely no respect for Charles what so ever, and they never should have married. He has married a mistress and they are both cheap in every way possible. I don't even see them as royal even though they are. It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on. I still don't respect them, and I'm happy that they are not next in line for the throne in the country I live.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.

That's i call a tempered comment... Thanks a lot for this lesson of forgiving and understanding

I see you're from Norway....Fortunately your own Crown Princess has a perfect and spotless background

 

[scooter]

The Hoey book is a very flattering biography of the Queen and the family history. The portion I quoted was not in the advertising at all, so it wasn't to sell books. Look, there are a lot of salacious books out there, this isn't one of them.

 

[Skydragon]

The Hoey book is a very flattering biography of the Queen and the family history. The portion I quoted was not in the advertising at all, so it wasn't to sell books. Look, there are a lot of salacious books out there, this isn't one of them.

So that would be why you wrote

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"

As I said scooter, IMO, you failed to make clear where your comments started/finished and my question remains the same, he apparently claims to know not only the thoughts of Rowan Williams but also Charles to a question that was apparently never asked. This is the quote you gave -

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'

I thought it reasonable to ask perhaps for a footnote from Hoey to say he had spoken to Rowan Williams, that doesn't get us away from how he knew what Charles might have been thinking.

 

[scooter]

So that would be why you wroteAs I said scooter, IMO, you failed to make clear where your comments started/finished and my question remains the same, he apparently claims to know not only the thoughts of Rowan Williams but also Charles to a question that was apparently never asked. This is the quote you gave - I thought it reasonable to ask perhaps for a footnote from Hoey to say he had spoken to Rowan Williams, that doesn't get us away from how he knew what Charles might have been thinking.

How was I unclear? I directly quoted the author citing the pages. If the publisher decided not to put in a footnote to satisfy Skydragon, that does not mean it's not true. When a major publishing house publishes a biography, especially of a very controversial figure, you can be sure that the law department has vetted the transcript exhaustively to prevent a libel suit. You will very seldom see a biography with a footnote on every sentence, which seems to be what you're looking for. Let me ask you directly: if not for the reason I cited from the book, which was that the idea of a religious ceremony was a non-starter and sure to be refused, how do you account for the fact that Camilla and Charles had a civil (questionably allowable, given the prior royal prescedent) ceremony; rather than a religious one, if it was possible? Surely as Heir to the Throne, and future Defender of the Faith, it would have been far more desirable to not break with tradition. Has there ever, EVER, been an heir to the throne in the BRF who married in a civil wedding service? What possible reason would Charles and Camilla CHOOSE to be married in a civil ceremony?

 

[Skydragon]

How was I unclear? I directly quoted the author citing the pages. If the publisher decided not to put in a footnote to satisfy Skydragon, that does not mean it's not true.

Good for you if you believe you were perfectly clear in denoting what were your comments and where they finished, others beside me did not find it to be as clear cut as you intended. Most good books will use a note to detail when or where this conversation took place, but the conversation didn't, which is why there are no notes I presume. There are a great deal of discerning readers out in the real world, who like to know where author X obtained his information from, rather than people who believe evry single word because it is in print, I even know someone who believes the LotR story is fact based.

The question remains the same, one which you have been unable to answer apparently, as to how anyone could know the answer to a question that was apparently not asked and the thoughts of another person.

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 embarrassmen

When a major publishing house publishes a biography, especially of a very controversial figure, you can be sure that the law department has vetted the transcript exhaustively to prevent a libel suit

And you missed my reply that although the publishing house may check whether they can be held resposible for any errors, they are quite happy to publish placing the resposibility on the author. From the many books published that claim to be fact, we know that many are far from it. The safeguard publishing houses use is that the work is the authors own. The Morton book is a case in point, Many of the 'facts' relayed by Diana to Morton were far from the truth and although some choose to believe every word, time and evidence have shown many sections to be far from it. There are books that deny the concentration camps set up by the British in the Boar war, but we know they existed, I could go on and on, so checks by publishing houses are not as extensive as you would like to believe. A publishing house will look at how much it is going to make from the sale of the books and how much it may have to pay out if they are sued. Many take the view that even controversial publicity will sell more books.

Let me ask you directly: if not for the reason I cited from the book, which was that the idea of a religious ceremony was a non-starter and sure to be refused,

But we don't know that do we, as for why they might not have had a religious ceremony in England, that could be their own personal view on second marriages, it could have been to avoid possibly upset to HM or even Anne who married in Scotland. They could have been trying to avoid even more condemnation from churchgoers, I won't call them Christians because the concept of Christianity seems to be missing from their thoughts.

 

[Thomasine]

I have absolutely no respect for Charles what so ever, and they never should have married. He has married a mistress and they are both cheap in every way possible. I don't even see them as royal even though they are. It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on. I still don't respect them, and I'm happy that they are not next in line for the throne in the country I live.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.

Quite contrary to my countrywoman Laurentienne, I refrain from passing moral judgement when I don't know the facts and figures behind someone's acts and behaviour. (My highlight in your posting)

In my opinion, Charles did exactly the right thing, married the woman who stood by him and who also endured the massive criticism from people like you. I would be proud to have him and Camilla as next in line to throne in my country (and yours).

I would very much like to have your opinion on Mette-Marit's suitablity to be the next Queen of Norway compared to Camilla's as the Queen of Great Britain. There is a notable difference in their background.

For the record, I have no problems with Mette-Marit as next Queen of Norway. I think she has grown with the duty and for that matter, so has Camilla.

I wish both couples well in the future and with the duties at hand!

 

[scooter]

Good for you if you believe you were perfectly clear in denoting what were your comments and where they finished, others beside me did not find it to be as clear cut as you intended. Most good books will use a note to detail when or where this conversation took place, but the conversation didn't, which is why there are no notes I presume. There are a great deal of discerning readers out in the real world, who like to know where author X obtained his information from, rather than people who believe evry single word because it is in print, I even know someone who believes the LotR story is fact based.

The question remains the same, one which you have been unable to answer apparently, as to how anyone could know the answer to a question that was apparently not asked and the thoughts of another person.

When a major publishing house publishes a biography, especially of a very controversial figure, you can be sure that the law department has vetted the transcript exhaustively to prevent a libel suit

And you missed my reply that although the publishing house may check whether they can be held resposible for any errors, they are quite happy to publish placing the resposibility on the author. From the many books published that claim to be fact, we know that many are far from it. The safeguard publishing houses use is that the work is the authors own. The Morton book is a case in point, Many of the 'facts' relayed by Diana to Morton were far from the truth and although some choose to believe every word, time and evidence have shown many sections to be far from it. There are books that deny the concentration camps set up by the British in the Boar war, but we know they existed, I could go on and on, so checks by publishing houses are not as extensive as you would like to believe. A publishing house will look at how much it is going to make from the sale of the books and how much it may have to pay out if they are sued. Many take the view that even controversial publicity will sell more books.
But we don't know that do we, as for why they might not have had a religious ceremony in England, that could be their own personal view on second marriages, it could have been to avoid possibly upset to HM or even Anne who married in Scotland.

'Good for me if I believe I was perfectly clear'. I directly and exactly quoted the book, citing the pages and used quote marks. Which part was confusing to you? I am curious, perhaps you could definitively answer, what do you consider a reliable source? A quote from Prince Charles and nothing else? Dimbleby and Morton? It's going to be a slow time around this forum, if that's the only thing we're allowed to discuss. I have to say, I am starting to get really tired of being bullied by you regarding ANYTHING to do with Camilla. I would also like to ask you for a straightforward answer, not the *****footing 'perhaps they didnt want to upset Anne' answer to 'For what possible reason would the Prince of Wales, future Defender of the Faith have to CHOOSE to not have a religious CoE ceremony with his second wife setting a new and questionably legal prescedent for a member of the BRF?' If the Archbishop of Canterbury was willing to marry them, do you really think they would have CHOSEN a registry office wedding? I call BS on that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And you missed my reply that although the publishing house may check whether they can be held resposible for any errors, they are quite happy to publish placing the resposibility on the author. From the many books published that claim to be fact, we know that many are far from it. The safeguard publishing houses use is that the work is the authors own. The Morton book is a case in point, Many of the 'facts' relayed by Diana to Morton were far from the truth and although some choose to believe every word, time and evidence have shown many sections to be far from it. There are books that deny the concentration camps set up by the British in the Boar war, but we know they existed, I could go on and on, so checks by publishing houses are not as extensive as you would like to believe. A publishing house will look at how much it is going to make from the sale of the books and how much it may have to pay out if they are sued. Many take the view that even controversial publicity will sell more books.
But we don't know that do we, as for why they might not have had a religious ceremony in England, that could be their own personal view on second marriages, it could have been to avoid possibly upset to HM or even Anne who married in Scotland.

'Good for me if I believe I was perfectly clear'. I directly and exactly quoted the book, citing the pages and used quote marks. Which part was confusing to you? I am curious, perhaps you could definitively answer, what do you consider a reliable source? A quote from Prince Charles and nothing else? Dimbleby and Morton? It's going to be a slow time around this forum, if that's the only thing we're allowed to discuss. I have to say, I am starting to get really tired of being bullied by you regarding ANYTHING to do with Camilla. I would also like to ask you for a straightforward answer, not the *****footing 'perhaps they didnt want to upset Anne' answer to 'For what possible reason would the Prince of Wales, future Defender of the Faith have to CHOOSE to not have a religious CoE ceremony with his second wife setting a new and questionably legal prescedent for a member of the BRF?' If the Archbishop of Canterbury was willing to marry them, do you really think they would have CHOSEN a registry office wedding? I call BS on that.

I did ask my now deceased Church of England minister that exact question at the time.

His reply was that even if someone as senior as the Archbishop was prepared to conduct a church wedding my minister believes that there was a very real chance that it could split the Anglican communion as marriage of divorced people was a very divisive issue. My minister would have been very happy to conduct the marriage but he was just a parish vicar and not at the level that the royals use for their weddings.

A couple of years later I was talking to a good friend of my parents who had reached the level of bishop this question and his response was that he wouldn't consider conducting that marriage as he felt that it wasn't appropriate for them to have a church wedding. I then told him what my minister had said and he said that he would respect the right of the minister to make that decision but that he wouldn't (not because Charles and/or Camilla was divorced but rather that his objection was that she had a living spouse). I regret not asking why he felt the Archbishop was prepared to preside over a virtual marriage ceremony but not an actual one. Next time I see him (hopefully not at a similar occasion as it was my mother's funeral) I hopefully will remember to ask him.

I have asked a number of other Anglican ministers over the years and they range from - 'they should have had a church wedding and they wouldn't have had a problem conducting the marriage' to 'they shouldn't be allowed to marry at all as she still has a living spouse' as well as 'I wouldn't marry them personally but if another minister wants to then they have the right to do so'. I asked a couple of them whether they agreed with my original minister's comment that it could have split the Anglican communion and the answer generally was 'Yes' as many of the very conservative communions would add that to the idea of gay priests/marriage and women priests as reasons to break the communion apart.

 

[Elspeth]

The Church of England's position on remarriage of divorcees is given fairly succintly in this FAQ (Your marriage in the Church of England | Church of England}

I'm divorced. Can I still get married in church?

"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."

This FAQ links to a more extensive document, which is here:

Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003) | Church of England

It says that clergy aren't obliged to perform such marriages but that it's being left to the individual conscience of the minister; the circumstances surrounding the breakup of the first marriage are also taken into account. There are yet more links in this document for anyone wanting to know details of the CofE position on remarriage of divorced people.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

What possible reason would Charles and Camilla CHOOSE to be married in a civil ceremony?

maybe because Charles wants to be a king for all Britons and defender of all faiths of his subjects? for me it makes sense that in this case he decides on a "civil" marriage instead of siding with just one church.

 

[Elspeth]

'Good for me if I believe I was perfectly clear'. I directly and exactly quoted the book, citing the pages and used quote marks. Which part was confusing to you? I am curious, perhaps you could definitively answer, what do you consider a reliable source? A quote from Prince Charles and nothing else? Dimbleby and Morton? It's going to be a slow time around this forum, if that's the only thing we're allowed to discuss. I have to say, I am starting to get really tired of being bullied by you regarding ANYTHING to do with Camilla. I would also like to ask you for a straightforward answer, not the *****footing 'perhaps they didnt want to upset Anne' answer to 'For what possible reason would the Prince of Wales, future Defender of the Faith have to CHOOSE to not have a religious CoE ceremony with his second wife setting a new and questionably legal prescedent for a member of the BRF?' If the Archbishop of Canterbury was willing to marry them, do you really think they would have CHOSEN a registry office wedding? I call BS on that.

Well, since the previous Archbishop had called for them to marry, it's entirely possible that a CofE wedding would have been on the cards, theoretically at least. Of course it's easy for Dr Carey to do that when he wasn't the one who'd have to answer the critics if the marriage had taken place in the CofE.

As far as I can gather from the guidelines put out by the church, divorced people can marry in the church if the officiating clergy is willing to conduct the ceremony. However, in some circumstances - and I think the case where the couple met and fell in love during (or, in C&C's case, before) the first marriage of one or both partners is one of them - things are likely to be a lot more difficult. Couples in this situation might be lucky and find a very broad-minded minster, but the chances are that they wouldn't. That being the case, it'd look very bad for Charles and Camilla to go ahead with it, even if Dr Carey was encouraging them to. It would look like the sort of special treatment that inevitably leads to widespread bad feeling, and feelings were running high enough as it was.

Charles and his advisors would have known the difference between what was theoretically possible and what was possible in real life. We don't know if someone at the Palace picked up the phone and talked to Dr Williams, or if they discussed it over lunch or something, but I'm sure that Charles himself wouldn't have been put in the position of asking the Archbishop directly. In practical terms, "yes, you can, but for the following PR reasons I'd strongly advise against" and "no you can't" amount to the same thing, even though they actually aren't.

 

[Skydragon]

'Good for me if I believe I was perfectly clear'. I directly and exactly quoted the book, citing the pages and used quote marks. Which part was confusing to you? I am curious, perhaps you could definitively answer, what do you consider a reliable source?

As I keep saying, to me you did not make as clear as others do, (some by use of dashes or placing the quote in quotes) where your comments started or finished.

A quote from Prince Charles and nothing else? Dimbleby and Morton? It's going to be a slow time around this forum, if that's the only thing we're allowed to discuss. I have to say, I am starting to get really tired of being bullied by you regarding ANYTHING to do with Camilla.

I would not suggest that I knew the answer to a question YOU hadn't asked or the reasons for it, perhaps others consider themselves to be mindreaders or merely forgot the IMO. With the best and clearest unbiased will in the world person A cannot possibly know what person B might have been thinking, or decided against asking for ???? reason - is that clear enough? You suggest I am bullying you, but I consider you to be the one doing the bullying, If I ask a simple question, interspersed by smiley signs, it seems to be a signal for the launch of 'a certain poster' said this or that, when in fact the words concerned are not 'a certain posters', but your own.

I would also like to ask you for a straightforward answer, not the *****footing - I call BS on that.

I much the same as anyone else on here or even esteemed authors cannot give you a straightforward answer, all anyone can do is suggest the reasons there might be. Perhaps he was expecting aliens to land any minute, perhaps it was to placate the churchgoers (who showed very little in the way of Christian beliefs), perhaps it was to avoid the sillyness of some alleged Diana fans, perhaps he wanted to be back in time to watch the National, It could even be for anyone of the logical reasons given in the posts immediately above by sensible posters, IMO, such as Ilovebertie, Elspeth, Jo. The whole point of my question regarding a note in the Hoey book was to try to find out if he had actually discussed it with Charles or Rowan Williams and from the lack of note, it would appear not, it was his opinion.

 

[Skydragon]

I have asked a number of other Anglican ministers over the years and they range from - 'they should have had a church wedding and they wouldn't have had a problem conducting the marriage' to 'they shouldn't be allowed to marry at all as she still has a living spouse' as well as 'I wouldn't marry them personally but if another minister wants to then they have the right to do so'. I asked a couple of them whether they agreed with my original minister's comment that it could have split the Anglican communion and the answer generally was 'Yes' as many of the very conservative communions would add that to the idea of gay priests/marriage and women priests as reasons to break the communion apart.

Sensible and thought out post, IMO.

I have many friends who have faced the same dilemma and the response from their ministers has been the same as you describe, with most allowing it but some against. The ones against seem to be the same ones that will not give a blessing to same sex couples or welcome female ministers into the church. When I have asked regarding Charles and Camilla, the majority have answered with 'we are all gods children' and pointed out the original concepts of christianity that many seem to have forgotten, love & forgiveness.

 

[StephS]

I don't want to say where I heard this just yet, but I've heard that there are some questions about the validity of HRH the Prince of Wales and Camilla's marriage; something about a ban on royals getting married in civil ceremonies or something like that. I'm not the biggest fan of Camilla's, but I sure would feel sorry for her if she got this far only to find out that all her plans came to naught.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This argument was raised at the time of the marriage and some people even went so far as to actually formally protest on legal grounds.

All appeals against the legitimacy of the marriage were dismissed.

The Lord Chancellor, who had to make the ruling, based a large part of his decision on the European Human Rights Legislation which gives everyone the right to marry. He said that the Human Rights Legislation over ruled any of the earlier legislation (maybe not in so many words but in effect). So regardless of the wording of the earlier laws the European laws make the marriage legal.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Plus one has to see what reason has there been between the Royal marriages laws.

Historically, all those "House Laws" have a similar raison d'etre: to keep the Royal princes and princesses in line. A marriage was a dynastic thing, so it was decided by the souverain, not the one getting married. In some cases he/she was consulted or could even choose but the final word in the matter belonged to the souverain. The queen accepted the marriage of her heir to Camilla, so this is not a problem.

But Britain has a history of political/dynastic conflicts due to religion. Thus it was important to make sure that a Royal prince could only marry in the Church of England/Scotland and not, for example, in a Catholic church. I don't think parliament at the time of the working on the Royal Marriages Acts were interested in theological questions, they were interested to keep the Catholic Jacobite-heirs out of the country and the Royal family firmly within the Chruch of England/Scotland. As Camilla is CoE, it is no problem from that point as well.

 

[Warren]

I don't want to say where I heard this just yet, but...

Somewhere on the internet no doubt?

 

[BellaFay]

How was I unclear? I directly quoted the author citing the pages. If the publisher decided not to put in a footnote to satisfy Skydragon, that does not mean it's not true. When a major publishing house publishes a biography, especially of a very controversial figure, you can be sure that the law department has vetted the transcript exhaustively to prevent a libel suit. You will very seldom see a biography with a footnote on every sentence, which seems to be what you're looking for. Let me ask you directly: if not for the reason I cited from the book, which was that the idea of a religious ceremony was a non-starter and sure to be refused, how do you account for the fact that Camilla and Charles had a civil (questionably allowable, given the prior royal prescedent) ceremony; rather than a religious one, if it was possible? Surely as Heir to the Throne, and future Defender of the Faith, it would have been far more desirable to not break with tradition. Has there ever, EVER, been an heir to the throne in the BRF who married in a civil wedding service? What possible reason would Charles and Camilla CHOOSE to be married in a civil ceremony?

'which was that the idea of a religious ceremony was a non-starter and sure to be refused,'

If the idea of a religious ceremony was such a non-starter how come Prince Charles and Camilla had at least one meeting towards the end of January 2005 with the clergywoman at Craithie Church at Balmoral to discuss holding a potential ceremony - this is according to a recent interview with the woman herself.

 

[BellaFay]

'Good for me if I believe I was perfectly clear'. I directly and exactly quoted the book, citing the pages and used quote marks. Which part was confusing to you? I am curious, perhaps you could definitively answer, what do you consider a reliable source? A quote from Prince Charles and nothing else? Dimbleby and Morton? It's going to be a slow time around this forum, if that's the only thing we're allowed to discuss. I have to say, I am starting to get really tired of being bullied by you regarding ANYTHING to do with Camilla. I would also like to ask you for a straightforward answer, not the *****footing 'perhaps they didnt want to upset Anne' answer to 'For what possible reason would the Prince of Wales, future Defender of the Faith have to CHOOSE to not have a religious CoE ceremony with his second wife setting a new and questionably legal prescedent for a member of the BRF?' If the Archbishop of Canterbury was willing to marry them, do you really think they would have CHOSEN a registry office wedding? I call BS on that.

Dimbleby at least has footnotes for all his quotes and claims.

 

[COUNTESS]

Look, Charles loved Camilla to all distraction. He would have married her in a Druid Ceremony, if that was all that worked. I appologize to Druids, it was not meant as a slight. Those who think Camilla is the Second Coming ignore all the different ethics and problems. Should it have been someone else, opinions would vary.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I wonder why they didn't take the Church of Scotland route? At least then there wouldn't be this controversy over whether or not the civil ceremony was legal.

'which was that the idea of a religious ceremony was a non-starter and sure to be refused,'

If the idea of a religious ceremony was such a non-starter how come Prince Charles and Camilla had at least one meeting towards the end of January 2005 with the clergywoman at Craithie Church at Balmoral to discuss holding a potential ceremony - this is according to a recent interview with the woman herself.