Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)

[Russophile]

I don't think it matters a whole lot, they can't have any children so there's no dynastic issues. Only when/if she is crowned Queen, which I'm sure could go either way, I am wondering how this will play out when Charles assumes the throne---not too soon, mind you, I'm very fond of HM!

 

[scooter]

Exactly. Why choose this unprescedented, controversial civil service if it's not the only choice? Why would they not have a Cof E wedding, if it was available to them? Would that not be a more suitable marriage ceremony foir the future Defender of the Faith?

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that there must have been some kind of deal made behind the scenes. Perhaps HM, as Defender of the Faith said something to the effect, "Okay, son, you can marry your mistress--but not in MY church." Actually, I'm being facetious here. But, seriously, given that Camilla was unpopular at the time of the wedding, perhaps the Archbishop didn't want to see further leeching from the Church over the issue. For any number of people, already disenchanted with the C of E's stands on various issues, a wedding between these two controversial people with their murky past could have been the last straw. A religious blessing of a civil marriage was a good compromise between a full church wedding and not having them marry at all.

Personally, I'm glad that Charles and Camilla married. The situation had to be resolved one way or another. Charles did the right thing by Camilla.

 

[StephS]

Charles may have done the right thing by Camilla, but I won't be too terribly surprised or upset if something should happen to cause HM to pass him over in favor of his eldest son, William. IMO, Prince William would make the better king. He seems to have a way with people that his father is, sadly, lacking.

 

[Iluvbertie]

You seem to be under the impression that the Queen has any say in who follows her as monarch. She doesn't.

The rule of succession are very clear and she can't just change them at her own whim.

Thus the order of succession is laid down and the only ways that Charles won't become King when the Queen dies is if:

a) he is already deceased
b) he has converted to Roman Catholicism
c) Parliament decides to pass legislation to deprive Charles of the throne for some reason - probably to abolish the monarchy altogether.

At 26 his father had a great rapport with the public and then he married and he lost some of his confidence, in my opinion. I remember the way he worked the crowds in Australia in the 70s (when he was William's age) and he was tremendous.

Charles is a great person to meet in the crowd (based on my one personal meeting in a crowd). Everyone I was with that day also said he was wonderful and how pleased they were to make the effort to see him.

 

[Warren]

IAt least then there wouldn't be this controversy over whether or not the civil ceremony was legal.

What controversy? On some internet forums by Diana partisans, sure, but in the real world?
Is anyone of note publicly proclaiming that Charles and Camilla aren't legally married?

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

They are certainly married in accordance with secular law and they must also be IAW Church law since the Church "blessed" their marriage. By blessing it, they recognize and therefore legalize it within the Church, right?

 

[Mermaid1962]

Even if the arguing about the legality of the marriage is mostly done by "Diana partisans", it's still controversy in an informal sense.

Is there any particular reason why a person who wonders about the unusual circumstances of this marriage is assumed to be a "Diana partisan"? I'm not one of those who feels compelled to carry the standard for the late Diana Princess of Wales.

What controversy? On some internet forums by Diana partisans, sure, but in the real world?
Is anyone of note publicly proclaiming that Charles and Camilla aren't legally married?

 

[Elspeth]

I don't know what's got into people lately, but when a moderator asks for a derailed conversation to move on, she isn't talking about continuing the derail. I've deleted the last couple of posts which were happily continuing to talk about Prince William.

Now can we please get back on topic?

Elspeth
British Royals moderator

 

[Warren]

Despite repeated requests to remain on topic, some members are determined to take this thread into a discussion about Prince William.

Those posts have now been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[Skydragon]

I don't know what's got into people lately, but when a moderator asks for a derailed conversation to move on, she isn't talking about continuing the derail. I've deleted the last couple of posts which were happily continuing to talk about Prince William.

Now can we please get back on topic?

So nice to be NOT GUILTY for a change!

 

[Warren]

No boasting! But true nonetheless.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Would someone take a look at post #427? I'm not trying to be a nag. I just want to know if my post is inaccurate, for my own education. Thanks!

 

[Mermaid1962]

As far as I know, the Church of England recognizes civil marriage. The blessing was a recognition that a legal marriage had taken place. At least, that's my read on the situation.

They are certainly married in accordance with secular law and they must also be IAW Church law since the Church "blessed" their marriage. By blessing it, they recognize and therefore legalize it within the Church, right?

 

[scooter]

Not to be rude, but I again ask...If a Church of England marriage ceremony was available to the Heir to the Throne and Future Defender of the Faith and his second bride, what possible reason would there be for Charles and Camilla to break prescedent and have a civil ceremony? I would also like the answer to not be 'Well the Diana nuts',,,, This is not about Diana. Why do certain posters and moderators keep bringing Diana up?

 

[Elspeth]

Not to be rude, but I again ask...If a Church of England marriage ceremony was available to the Heir to the Throne and Future Defender of the Faith and his second bride, what possible reason would there be for Charles and Camilla to break prescedent and have a civil ceremony?

Doesn't matter how many times you ask, the answer is the same. While it was theoretically possible for them to be married in the Church of England if they'd found a clergyman who was prepared to officiate (since the decision about remarrying divorced people is left to the discretion of the individual clergy), it's well known that in a case where the couple were having an affair during the first marriage of either or both of them, it wouldn't be easy to find a clergyman prepared to officiate. Doesn't mean it'd be impossible, but it wouldn't be easy.

For most people, the local clergy would probably refuse to officiate. Some people would be lucky and live in a parish where the clergyman was more broad-minded, but a lot wouldn't. If a more broad-minded senior clergyman had come forward and offered to marry Charles and Camilla, it would have looked like special treatment, and this is something the royal family have tended to try to avoid over the years.

With the marriage being resented by an element of Diana fans (and yes, that does factor into the equation however much you're trying to claim that it doesn't) as well as by more traditional people who simply don't accept remarriage after divorce, the level of tolerance for an egregious case of special treatment would have been pretty low, and it would have been unwise of the royals to try and force it.

Now, if you can go through the Church of England website and quote where it says that people in Charles and Camilla's situation are prohibited from having a Church wedding, go ahead. At this point, that's the only thing that would give your claim unequivocal support. Start here

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/mcad/index.html

and also follow some of the links.

 

[wbenson]

And even if they did find a member of the clergy willing to do it, having someone not the Archbishop of Canterbury performing the ceremony (although I wouldn't be surprised if they could have at least found a bishop who would ordinarily disapprove but would compromise it for the prestige) would have opened up another can of worms about his lack of approval and how it means that it's a 100% certain sure thing that he disapproves completely of the union and Charles the person and that he'll refuse to crown him, etc.

 

[Skydragon]

If you try to look at it logically, as Charles may one day be head of the CoE, he wouldn't want to be involved in any split that might have been caused if Williams had performed a ceremony. The CoE is struggling to move out of the dark ages with the appointment of female clergy, gay men and women and the general acceptance of 2nd marriages. but there are many enlightened clergymen about. I was at a church wedding back in 1989 where the two participents really were the cause of the breakdown of each others marriages and the ceremony was performed by a fairly high ranking (Arch Deacon) member of the clergy!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I believe you have a point here. I wouldn't put it past Charles to have made two points here: first he doesn't want to put the CoE into difficulties, second he wanted to show that laws that divide the Royals and all other people living in Britain into two categories are void. What's good enough for all Britons is good enough for him as well: civil marriage as alternative to a church wedding. A kind of vice-versa Anti-apartheit-action.

 

[scooter]

Doesn't matter how many times you ask, the answer is the same. While it was theoretically possible for them to be married in the Church of England if they'd found a clergyman who was prepared to officiate (since the decision about remarrying divorced people is left to the discretion of the individual clergy), it's well known that in a case where the couple were having an affair during the first marriage of either or both of them, it wouldn't be easy to find a clergyman prepared to officiate. Doesn't mean it'd be impossible, but it wouldn't be easy.

For most people, the local clergy would probably refuse to officiate. Some people would be lucky and live in a parish where the clergyman was more broad-minded, but a lot wouldn't. If a more broad-minded senior clergyman had come forward and offered to marry Charles and Camilla, it would have looked like special treatment, and this is something the royal family have tended to try to avoid over the years.

With the marriage being resented by an element of Diana fans (and yes, that does factor into the equation however much you're trying to claim that it doesn't) as well as by more traditional people who simply don't accept remarriage after divorce, the level of tolerance for an egregious case of special treatment would have been pretty low, and it would have been unwise of the royals to try and force it.

Now, if you can go through the Church of England website and quote where it says that people in Charles and Camilla's situation are prohibited from having a Church wedding, go ahead. At this point, that's the only thing that would give your claim unequivocal support. Start here

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

and also follow some of the links.

Elspeth, you yourself just listed all the reasons why the Archbishop of Canterbury would not marry Charles and Camilla. And why 'it would not have been wise of the royals to try to force it'. This is my entire point. If they had been able to have the Cof E ceremony without it causing even more of a kerfuffle than the actual marriage of these two (ie that it would be 'an egregious case of special treatment'), they would have done so. When you say that 'it's well known that in a case where the couple were having an affair during the first marriage of either or both of them, it wouldn't be easy to find a clergy man prepared to officiate' and that 'for most people the local clergy would refuse to officiate'. My point is...lets stop pretending that it was a voluntary 'lifestyle choice' that Charles and Camilla had a civil cermony, as opposed to the fact that they would have had a very difficult road finding a priest willing to officiate. Dont you think if the A of C said, why I'd be happy to perform the ceremony, that they would have had a traditional CofE wedding officiated by the highest prelate in the land....or for that matter, any prelate in the land?

 

[Elspeth]

As I said, for a number of reasons it would have been difficult for them to do it and inadvisable for them to try.

That's not the same as "it would have been impossible."

But as long as your entire point is that in fact, if not in theory, a CofE wedding wouldn't have been the appropriate thing to do, and as long as hardly anyone, if anyone at all, is disagreeing, what are we actually arguing about?

 

[scooter]

I'm not trying to argue with you or anyone, I'm just saying that had there been the possibility of having a Cof E wedding without major difficulty, they would have done so. It's frustrating when people say that they could have done so but chose to have a civil ceremony, breaking royal prescedent (not to mention the whole Royals forbidden civil ceremonies issue), basically on a whim. I do also think that if, as you and I agree, the whole remarriage to the person who was a factor in the divorce was the issue, it could rear it's head at Coronation time, for the same eclesiastical reasons. You will also please notice, that at no time have I brought the first wife into the discusion, as others have. I will however say, that I do not believe that this marriage could have ever taken place if either QEQM or The Princess Margaret were alive. For the QEQM, the only reason that she and her daughter were on the throne was because Edward VIII was catragorically not allowed to marry his divorced mistress. The Princess Margaret was instructed by QEII, that if she chose to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend (the innocent party in his divorce) that Margaret would have to give up her place in the succession (then 4th) and live abroad, receiving no $ from the civil list. To be perfectly honest with you, I dont understand why the rules were bent into a corkscrew for Charles and Camilla.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm not trying to argue with you or anyone, I'm just saying that had there been the possibility of having a Cof E wedding without major difficulty, they would have done so. It's frustrating when people say that they could have done so but chose to have a civil ceremony, breaking royal prescedent (not to mention the whole Royals forbidden civil ceremonies issue), basically on a whim.

I agree with at least some of this. I think that while it would have probably been possible, it would for a lot of reasons been both difficult and highly unadvisable. A church wedding in Scotland might have been contrived, but I presume they had their reasons for not doing that.

I do also think that if, as you and I agree, the whole remarriage to the person who was a factor in the divorce was the issue, it could rear it's head at Coronation time, for the same eclesiastical reasons.

I really doubt it. As I said before, if the Church tries to undermine the Head of State like that, the almost certain outcome would be disestablishment of the Church, not abdication of the King. While there's been a long tradition in the Church of England of not permitting remarriage of divorcees, which has only recently started to be relaxed, there's also a long tradition of crowning monarchs with some very shady pasts. It's one thing for the Church to weigh in on the morality of marriage and remarriage; it's an entirely different thing for the Church to start making conditions for accepting a particular person as Head of State.

You will also please notice, that at no time have I brought the first wife into the discusion, as others have. I will however say, that I do not believe that this marriage could have ever taken place if either QEQM or The Princess Margaret were alive. For the QEQM, the only reason that she and her daughter were on the throne was because Edward VIII was catragorically not allowed to marry his divorced mistress. The Princess Margaret was instructed by QEII, that if she chose to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend (the innocent party in his divorce) that Margaret would have to give up her place in the succession (then 4th) and live abroad, receiving no $ from the civil list. To be perfectly honest with you, I dont understand why the rules were bent into a corkscrew for Charles and Camilla.

Part of it is simply that divorce doesn't have the stigma now that it did during the Edward-Wallis affair or even when Margaret and Townsend were wanting to marry. I think part of it is also that these days it's more widely believed than it used to be that Princess Margaret was treated with appalling and quite unnecessary cruelty in the attempt by the Establishment to prevent her going down the same road that Edward and Wallis did, and that something should have been worked out to allow her to retain her position at least at some level while being able to marry him. Nowadays that needless cruelty is the more recent precedent, and most people would find it distasteful for the Establishment (full of remarried divorcees itself) to moralise to Charles and Camilla about a situation which wasn't entirely of their own making in the first place.

My personal opinion is that the Queen Mother was a thorough-going hypocrite, and a mean-spirited one at that, over the Edward-Wallis affair, and I wish the Queen had told her to keep her antediluvian attitudes to herself and just live with the fact that Charles and Camilla were getting married. The Queen spent far too much of her life under her mother's thumb.

 

[Iluvbertie]

For the QEQM, the only reason that she and her daughter were on the throne was because Edward VIII was catragorically not allowed to marry his divorced mistress.

For the Queen Mum maybe but as Edward and Wallis never had children of their own Elizabeth II would have become Queen eventually anyway - in 1972 instead of 1952, unless Edward was so truly unsuitable that he cause a revolution to overthrow the throne (but I don't think he would have done that).

 

[branchg]

Charles and Camilla's situation is entirely different than the one faced by Edward and Wallis in 1936. Charles is not yet King and Camilla has signaled her desire to be a Princess, and not Queen, when he succeeds his mother as The Sovereign. Whether this will, in fact, come to pass remains to be seen, but they are already married and she shares all of her husband's titles and styles as HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay.

 

[MARG]

Whether this will, in fact, come to pass remains to be seen, but they are already married and she shares all of her husband's titles and styles as HRH The Princess Charles, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay.

Not to forget Princess of Wales, actual but unused by choice.

 

[ysbel]

I just found an article on another forum which was the news report right after Charles and Diana separated. It appears that Charles' future position as Head of the Church of England would have been compromised even by a divorce, regardless of how the divorce came about.

Charles and Diana to separate | 1990-1999 | Guardian Century

So it seems that the Church of England was already making concessions before Charles married Camilla, possibly because of the changing attitudes towards the divorce and the fact that 3 of the Queen's children went through divorce.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think the fact that this is in the Guardian - an outright republican paper has to be considered.

I notice that it had Charles moving in with his grandmother - who lived for another 9+ years. The article said he was moving to Clarence House.

The church was moving with the times and really couldn't have a problem with a divorced king seeing as it was founded by a divorced king and he later divorced a second time - not to mention executing two other wives. I think that it was more public perception based on the events on 1936 rather than the actual facts in relation to the church that was the issue - more would the people accept a divorced Charles considering who the wife was and how would people react to that and then how would the church react. Once Diana died these issues largely went away.

 

[MARG]

Charles and Camilla's situation is entirely different than the one faced by Edward and Wallis in 1936.

You said it!

With the benefit of 20 20 hindisght we all tend to forget that there has been a quantum leap in social behavior since 1936.

Those "fair-minded" people who rail against to inequities of that era are using the social yardstick of the 21st Century to measure the difference. It does not, and can not work.

In 1936 Wallis was seen as, quite frankly, a whore at worst or a mistress at best. Neither being a suitable Queen. In an era where divorce was still a scandal, Wallis had managed a scandalous two! It was also common knowledge among the social circle in which they moved that she had other lovers both before and during her relationship with Edward.

Decades later you only have to look at the "scandalous" divorce of Princess Diana's parents with it's subsequent "banishment" of her mother to see that it was still inequitable and unfair. But, between then and now, the law has finally caught up with reality (OK, so not Coronation Street reality but llife in the 21st century).

Divorce is unfortunately the reality of the times in which we live. Trying to selectively resurrect the cruel and unfair practices of the past to justify a personal opinion in the 21st century is hypocritcal. If you don't like the people concerned, fine! But trying to say their marriage is invalid is a little to "out there" to be taken seriously.

 

[ysbel]

Bertie and Marg, I agree with you for the most part. However, I was wondering what could have been in the Church doctrines that would have prevented a divorced King from taking the throne.