Charles and Camilla to Marry

[Elspeth]

The Earl of St Andrews isn't an HRH, though. I'm not sure if that makes a difference.

[wymanda]

At that time he was still in the line of succession and his children remain so.

[Elspeth]

Yes, but by not being an HRH, I mean that he's too far removed from the monarch, not that he had to give up his position in the succession. Prince Michael of Kent is still an HRH by virtue of being George V's grandson, even though he isn't in the succession. The Earl of Ulster isn't an HRH even though he's married to a Protestant and is still in the line of succession.

I'm not really clear whether by "royal family" the law just applies to those with HRH titles or the immediate family of the current sovereign or what. I mean, if you count the royal family as being anyone with descent from Queen Victoria, there's hundreds of them, and I assume some of them have married legally in Register Offices.

[wymanda]

This link http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/cedir/cedir/Lex-doc/Uk_Mar-Act49.pdf#search='Marriage%20Act%201949' has the complete text of the Marriage Act 1949 and in no place can I find any reference to members of the royal family not being covered under this legislation.

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Sara, she WILL be Princess of Wales, she'll just be KNOWN AS Duchess of Cornwall. Equally, without legislation to prevent it, when Charles become king she will be queen, even if she's known as Princess Consort. Obviously these titles are being used to avoid it looking as though they're insulting the memory of Diana, but Camilla will still have the PoW title even though she won't be using it.

im royalwatcher! but i knew about Princess Diana's fans since 1997 but many people in England wont wanted Camilla become Princess of Wales or Queen of England because Diana is DEAD! but Camilla cant become Queen that it! if people thinks Camilla will become Queen i cant support her! PEROID! but William would hurt feelings about replace his beloved mother's titles they wanted to hold for his future brides getting as POW not as Camilla! if she would grants as Queen i would break my feelings!

Sara Boyce

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII

Yes,now the title for Camilla is Her Royal Highness Duchess Camilla of Cornwall.If Prince Charles become King,she will be The Princess Consort not The Queen.But Prince Charles still hope the public agree for Camilla become Queen for the crowning at Westminster Abbey.

Camilla cant become Queen! she is not popular! she is homewrecker into Prince Charles and Princess Diana's marriages i knew it!

Sara Boyce

[Elspeth]

Apparently there was something in the 1836 Act that excluded members of the royal family from the ability to contract civil weddings, and there seems to be some controversy about whether the 1949 act did anything about that exclusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/4262963.stm

I'm sure the royal family will have taken some first-rate legal advice about this matter before deciding to go ahead, so I assume they don't see a problem.

[Elspeth]

Sara, we'll just have to wait and see what Camilla's title will be when Charles becomes king or whether there's some legislation passed in the current reign to allow for the possibility of a king's wife not becoming queen.

In the meantime, there's nothing we can do to affect things one way or the other, so there's no point getting worked up about it.

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Sara, we'll just have to wait and see what Camilla's title will be when Charles becomes king or whether there's some legislation passed in the current reign to allow for the possibility of a king's wife not becoming queen.

In the meantime, there's nothing we can do to affect things one way or the other, so there's no point getting worked up about it.

okay!

Prince Charles will become King after his mum and Camilla cant become Queen you know that.

Sara Boyce

[Dennism]

AP

LONDON - Officially, it's off the agenda. But the marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles — two divorcees — was looming large over the Church of England's general synod on Monday. Several delegates urged Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and synod president, to raise the royal wedding as an emergency issue. But he said the agenda was too full. However, the issue could be raised later as a question during the four-day meeting. During Monday's two-hour session, the Rev. David Houlding, a member of the Archbishop's Council, asked the synod to congratulate Prince Charles and Parker Bowles on their engagement. The 579-member group applauded loudly. But three delegates questioned the legality of the couple's decision to marry outside the Church of England in a civil ceremony.

"It has grave consequences for the future of the church. It has grave consequences for the future of this nation," said Allan Jones, a delegate from the diocese of Liverpool. He and the two other delegates said the church must decide whether that course of action is right or wrong, and tell the public. But the Rev. Richard Turnbull, chairman of the synod's business committee, said "now is not the moment" to discuss it.

The major issues on the agenda at the meeting, which is held twice a year, are homosexuality and the ordination of women bishops — topics which have caused major divisions within the church. But the church is now in a delicate position regarding the royal wedding. As a divorcee, Charles is free to remarry because his former wife, Princess Diana, died. But Parker Bowles's ex-husband is alive, so in some eyes she is not free to remarry. Charles and Camilla are planning a civil ceremony on April 8 at Windsor Castle. It will be followed by a separate service of prayer and dedication overseen by Williams, the head of the Church of England. The unusual plan to avoid a church marriage apparently was agreed upon because of the divorce issue. Last week, Williams issued a statement confirming that the marriage was within church guidelines and had his "full support."

[Elspeth]

Thanks for the information, Dennis.

I'm sure there are branches of the Church of England that are really having bad problems with this issue. Considering the way things are divided over the way to treat homosexual clergy, this isn't great timing (assuming there ever would be a good time to have to work through something like this).

[ingenue]

I am a diana fan, but i think we should just all be happy for them both. i saw the photos of them together and think, they SHOULD be together because they both look so happy. despte my misgivings about the charles-di breakup, i wish camilla and charles (or fred and gladys hehe) well and that they may have a good married life together... :) cheers to our ole farts :)

[sara1981]

thanks for articles,dennism

that totally strange articles but i never know about that! but i never understand about that! if who are homosexual? or not! if have pastor have it!

Sara Boyce

[Dennism]

You´re welcome. Nightline did a whole piece tonight on the marriage. The various things included discussion of the title debate and such things. It was basically a primer for those people, unlike my fellow watchers, who have not been paying attention. A little discussion about the children who according to Tina Brown are basically something akin to "It´s his life. We are adults now. We don´t really like her too much but he can do what he wants." Well, it was something like that.

[wymanda]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Apparently there was something in the 1836 Act that excluded members of the royal family from the ability to contract civil weddings, and there seems to be some controversy about whether the 1949 act did anything about that exclusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/4262963.stm

I'm sure the royal family will have taken some first-rate legal advice about this matter before deciding to go ahead, so I assume they don't see a problem.

Elspeth,
I work in a legal environment and my understanding is that if a piece of legislation is rewritten (as the 1836 Act obviously was) it ceases to exist. In the same way some of the clauses in the 1949 Act have been superceeded by clauses in the Amendment Act which came out a couple of years ago. If the Registry Services in the UK operate with the 1949 Act as their principle peice of legislation then that is the legislation that applies. I think that it is likely that some minor royals have been led astray with false information and forced to marry overseas. For example Prince & Princess Michael married in Vienna & the Earl of Harewood married his second wife in Conneticut. As the 1949 Act reads there is no reason a civil marriage cannot be undertaken in the UK by a member of the royal family.

[ingenue]

off topic, i think camilla would look SO MUCH better if she recuts her hair. the shag hair is just not working for me...

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Anyway not!She can not become Queen.Never!Never become Princess of Wales or Queen of England!She's the one who has destroyed the marriage of Charles and Diana.

[HMQueenElizabethII]

Not only because of her hair.She does not have enough personality to become The Queen.How can a woman who have divorced become Queen?You know,in the 1930s,when King Edward VIII loved Wallis Simpson,The Queen Mother Elizabeth(at that time she was the Duchess of York)did not approve.She had told the courtiers do not curtsey to Wallis Simpson.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by wymanda

Elspeth,
I work in a legal environment and my understanding is that if a piece of legislation is rewritten (as the 1836 Act obviously was) it ceases to exist. In the same way some of the clauses in the 1949 Act have been superceeded by clauses in the Amendment Act which came out a couple of years ago. If the Registry Services in the UK operate with the 1949 Act as their principle peice of legislation then that is the legislation that applies. I think that it is likely that some minor royals have been led astray with false information and forced to marry overseas. For example Prince & Princess Michael married in Vienna & the Earl of Harewood married his second wife in Conneticut. As the 1949 Act reads there is no reason a civil marriage cannot be undertaken in the UK by a member of the royal family.

Well, that certainly seems to make sense, and as I said, I doubt they'd have made this decision without taking expert legal advice. I wonder how much of the stuff about possible problems of legality is true and how much is either people wanting to make trouble or media execs wanting to sell newspapers.

[cut1me]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

charles gave her a favorite ring of the queen mum

in one of the newspapers im sorry i cant remenber which one, they said the ring was worth £1/2 million