Charles and Camilla to Marry: February 10, 2005

[Elspeth]

I read that there are going to be two stamps, one of which will be more formal-looking than that one. Perhaps it'll be a better picture of him.

 

[Anna_R]

From Colourpress, the two stamps that'll be released for Charles and Camilla's wedding

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

The one that is on an angle isn't the greatest pic ever.

 

[marezdote]

today from reuters...

Media barred from royal wedding
Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:57 AM GMT
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Paul Majendie

LONDON (Reuters) - The last time Prince Charles walked down the aisle, 800 million television viewers watched him tie the knot with Princess Diana.

This time around, the future king is down to just a handful of witnesses when he marries longtime lover Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony at the town hall in Windsor.

The media are to be excluded from the nuptials, with Charles ever wary of comparisons between the marriages in a country where most people oppose Camilla ever becoming queen.

A spokesman for the prince told Reuters on Tuesday: "It was never intended that the civil ceremony should be televised as it was always planned to be a relatively small, personal occasion."

Just 30 people will witness Charles' marriage on April 8 to Parker Bowles, the woman forever blamed for destroying his "fairytale" marriage to the late Diana.

Among those attending will be Charles' sons Princes William and Harry as well as Camilla's son and daughter.

The Queen, who has been slow to accept her eldest son's 35-year affair with the now divorced mother of two, has decided not to attend the civil ceremony in what has been widely interpreted as a snub to the couple.

In 1981, Charles married his radiant virgin bride Diana in great splendour at St Paul's Cathedral.

The streets of the capital were packed with thousands of cheering well-wishers and the ceremony was televised worldwide.

Following Diana's death in a Paris car crash in 1997, the worldwide television audience almost trebled for her funeral.

Charles still faces another tricky choice over his marriage to Camilla.

No decision has been made yet on whether the media will be allowed afterwards into the church blessing in St George's Chapel within the grounds of Windsor Castle.

The service is being conducted by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans.

Televising the blessing is a sensitive issue because both Charles and Camilla are divorced and, as future king, Charles will take on the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Church rules were changed in 2003 so that it would be possible "in exceptional circumstances" for divorcees to remarry in church. The decision is for the local parish priest to make in each case.

The marriage plans have already dissolved into a comedy of errors with the venue changed from Windsor Castle to the town hall because of a mix-up over marriage licences. Constitutional experts also question the legality of a civil ceremony.

 

[GrandDuchess]

From The Church Times:

An interesting article from when the wedding was first announced...

Civil wedding for Prince of Wales

THE Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles are to marry on 8 April in a "largely private" civil ceremony at Windsor Castle, followed by a service of prayer and dedication in St George's Chapel, Windsor, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside.

In a statement from Lambeth Palace yesterday, the Archbishop said: "These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England."

The statement also said: "I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles have decided to take this important step. I hope and pray that it will prove a source of comfort and strength to them and to those who are closest to them."

It was announced from Clarence House that after the marriage Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, and that, when the Prince accedes to the throne, she will use the title HRH The Princess Consort.

The Church of England's official practice concerning the marriage of divorcees has undergone many changes since the Abdication crisis in 1936, which followed King Edward VIII's decision to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson. At that time, there was a prevailing view in the Church of England that marriage was indissoluble.

The most recent changes were finalised in November 2002, when the General Synod rescinded resolutions of the Convocations of Canterbury and York requiring that the Church of England marriage service was not to be used for a divorcee whose former spouse was still living. The decision is now left with the officiant, who is expected to seek his or her bishop's advice.

Since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, from whom Prince Charles was divorced, his marital status has presented no obstacle to a church wedding. Mrs Parker Bowles, however, is a divorcee, with a former husband still living.

The House of Bishops' advice to the clergy on deciding whether or not to allow a marriage in church is contained in the June 2002 report Marriage in Church after Divorce.

The report advises the parish clergy to ask themselves, among other questions: "Would the effects of the proposed marriage on individuals, the wider community and the Church be such as to undermine the credibilty of the Church's witness on marriage?" and "Would permitting the new marriage be tantamount to consecrating an old infidelity?"

The Common Worship Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage is the current version of a service introduced nationally in 1985, when the General Synod was in an impasse in its discussions on marriage after divorce.

The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Revd Michael Perham, in whose diocese the couple live and worship, welcomed yesterday's announcement, and said: "The issue of marriage in church is a sensitive one. We need to trust the judgement of the Dean of Windsor, if that is where they are to be married, as to what kind of service would be appropriate and helpful. In that respect they are like any other couple in similar circumstances seeking the blessing of the Church on their marriage."

Since St George's Chapel is a Royal Peculiar, there must be some doubt whether it is bound to adhere to provisions in Common Worship. But the Common Worship Order of Prayer and Dedication, popularly referred to as a "service of blessing", includes optional opening prayers of penitence, and an optional blessing of wedding rings, for which the couple's hands are extended; but there is not an exchange of rings.

The order may take place within a celebration of holy communion. It may include a sermon and hymns. The dedication of the couple ends with a prayer that the couple may have grace to persevere, and a blessing over them (separately from the final blessing of the congregation). "Other prayers" may be used.

The couple "enter the church without ceremony and sit together at the front of the church"; there are no banns, nor any entry made in the marriage register. The order need not be led by a priest. If the Common Worship order is used, it can be assumed to lie mainly within the discretion of Dean of Windsor how far in other respects the service will resemble a Church of England wedding.

Prince Charles and other members of the royal family have consistently shown a preference for services or prayers from the 1662 Prayer Book or, in practice, the Church of England's lightly revised version of some of the services in that book, known as "Series 1" and based on the abortive 1928 revision.

 

[marezdote]

I hope that they decide to broadcast the church part of the wedding.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

But he had his first wedding broadcasted.

 

[Amira]

Another Article about the wedding:


Thirty people to attend Prince Charles's civil ceremony, media banned

LONDON (AFP) - [size=-1]Only 30 people will witness the civil wedding between Britain's Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles next month and no media are invited, the prince's office said. [/size]

The low-key ceremony at a town hall in Windsor, just outside London, will be in stark contrast to Charles's first marriage to the late Princess Diana, which was watched by more than 750 million television viewers worldwide.

"There will be 30 people... the civil ceremony was always intended to be a personal occasion," said a spokeswoman for his office at Clarence House.

No reporters or television cameras would be allowed to attend the ceremony on April 8 at Windsor's Guildhall, she told AFP.

Charles's sons William and Harry, as well as Parker Bowles's two children from her first marriage, would attend the service, a source close to the royal family said late Monday.

Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip have decided to stay away but they will take part in a subsequent church blessing in St George's Chapel at nearby Windsor Castle along with some 700 other guests.

A decision has yet to be made on whether the media would be allowed to attend the later service of prayer and dedication, the spokeswoman said.

Prince Charles had originally wanted to marry in Windsor Castle, but the marriage permit would have required opening up the castle to any members of the public who wanted to marry there over the next three years.

 

[trinny]

Going back to the stamps for a moment... they aren't particularly flattering colours... but I think the pictures show who they are quite well: their personalities and I like the stamps because of it.

They look like two happy people, happy in each other's company - and I think that's lovely.

I actually think Prince Charles looks quite lovely laughing - good to see him happy.

 

[Alexandria]

Going back to the stamps for a moment... they aren't particularly flattering colours... but I think the pictures show who they are quite well: their personalities and I like the stamps because of it.

They look like two happy people, happy in each other's company - and I think that's lovely.

I actually think Prince Charles looks quite lovely laughing - good to see him happy.

I agree trinny. I think the stamps aren't as glamorous as the ones of Charles and Diana so many moons ago, but they do represent Charles and Camilla as a couple and as individuals very well. They both love the country and all that it entails and the picture of them is, while formal, also very natural of the two of them smiling. No forced smiles.

 

[Georgia]

Prince Charles' wedding has left me perplexed. On one hand I wish them all the happiness in the world as they are both middle aged people who obviously love each other and aren't getting any younger.
However, Charles isn't just all those things I just mentioned. He is heir to the British throne. He has a greater responsibility to the future of OUR monarchy than anyone else. If the majority of the public oppose this wedding then shouldn't he reconsider? Isn't the future of the monarchy not more important? After all he is but a future figurehead to something much greater than he. In a time when republicism (sorry for the swearing!) is rising and freedom of speech is ever growing, shouldn't Charles be thinking of his responsibilities and his future as well as that of his son? If he really does love Camillia and I'm sure he does, then he should do the honourable thing and renounce the throne. Not for the Diana lovers or the extreme relgious views but for an institution that has been part of British history for centuries.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

You have to understand that he is only human. He can't exactly renounce his right to the throne. If it was that easy, the Queen would have alreay abdicated and be living her life peacefully in retirement.

 

[Warren]

There are elements of sacred duty, dynasty, birthright, and service to the nation.

Not to be given up lightly.

Renunciation would be the easy way out. Instead, the Prince of Wales is facing this issue head-on. This shows courage and strength of character.

Prime Ministers come and go; public approval rises and falls; the media see-saws between adulation and ridicule.

Ride out the storms, and always look to the long-term.

 

[GrandDuchess]

The makers of tacky souvenirs have apparently decided to try and make a few bucks out of the coming marriage.... From Getty:

 

[GrandDuchess]

From BBC NEWS:

Charles' wedding blessing on TV

The church blessing of the Prince of Wales' marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles will be televised live.

The 45-minute religious service will follow the private civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall on 8 April.

Led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the blessing in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle will be attended by about 750 guests.

The Clarence House move ends debate over whether the public will see the couple on their wedding day.

Previously, it was suggested that the media would be barred from the civil ceremony.

Audience

A Clarence House spokesman said "all parties have agreed that televising the service in St George's is the right way forward".

He said the Queen, the Prince of Wales, Mrs Parker Bowles, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dean of Windsor were all consulted about the decision to televise the ceremony.

The BBC will host the broadcast of the 45-minute ceremony.

In 1981 some 750 million people watched Prince Charles marry Lady Diana Spencer at St Paul's Cathedral.

While the April service will also be broadcast to the masses, only 30 people will be present at the Guildhall to witness the marriage in person.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have already announced they will not be attending the civil ceremony, but will be at the church blessing.

There has been interest in whether Charles and Camilla would decide to include prayers of penitence in their blessing.

Blunders

If they do, the nation could see Charles and Camilla, who committed adultery together, confess their sins in a standard prayer.

Since its announcement the wedding appears to have been plagued by controversy and blunders.

Due to both Charles and Camilla being divorcees, they were unable to have their wedding in a church.

Instead, they agreed to a civil ceremony which would then be blessed in a religious service.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

It's great that they will televised the Blessing Ceremony.So i think they will have some pics.

 

[Monalisa]

INSIDE THE VENUES FOR CHARLES AND CAMILLA'S WEDDING:

1-INTRO:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_1_1.html

2-THE BACKDROP – Windsor :


http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_2_1.html

3-THE CEREMONY – The Guildhall:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_3_1.html

4-THE BLESSING – St George's Chapel:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_4_1.html

5-THE RECEPTION – The State Apartments at Windsor Castle:



http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_5_1.html

6-THE HONEYMOON – Birkhall, Scotland:



http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_6_1.html

7-THE PHOTO GALLERY:



http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/specials/weddingvenues/pagina_7_1.html

 

[Monalisa]

more about charles and camilla!

pictures' gallery:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/specials/charlesandcamilla/cover.html

 

[GrandDuchess]

Interesting piece from The Guardian:

Let's get personal
Charles and Camilla's wedding is a chance to inflict some real damage

Ros Coward
Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian

The wedding of Charles and Camilla offers plenty of opportunity for republicans to score some goals. They could deride the useless royal advisers who failed to check the venue's viability and, more spectacularly, the legality of the marriage itself. They could expose an India rubber constitution that resists change but creates new categories such as "Princess Consort" when the need arises. They could highlight Charles's hypocrisy, falling back on the human rights legislation that he so often rails against. They could capitalise on the unpopularity of Camilla or dwell on our first family snubbing each other's nuptials. But republicans have had nothing to say.

This silence is scarcely surprising. Republicans in recent years have been very high-minded, insisting the real questions are constitutional and nothing to do with the soap opera that has fascinated the rest of the population. Ironically, theirs is a mirror image of what monarchists think. Royalists also believe the institution is more important than the flawed individuals who sometimes inhabit it. They must be hugely relieved that, on top of all the other wedding disasters, they don't have to deal with republicans.

But this republican separation of constitutional issues and incumbents fails to understand the nature of contemporary royalty. The monarch certainly has constitutional powers, but for a long time has not exercised them. The monarch's role is increasingly symbolic. The monarch is meant to be above politics, embodying national identity or values. That means their personalities and behaviour do actually matter.

Even republicans would be hard pressed to deny the Queen has fulfilled those functions. Apart from being the mother of dysfunctional children and having Tupperware on the breakfast table, we know little personal about her. Unlike her son, she has spared us her views on issues of the day, and we only know her as someone who turns up, shakes hands, offers consolation and does her duty. To the public, she represents continuity with the past, a link to the war and the old Commonwealth, someone who puts country before herself. As such she's a figure of unity.

Nobody could say the same of Charles. However sound he is on GM crops, however useful the Prince's Trust may be, however delightful his organic dinner parties at Highgrove might be, Charles divides people rather than unites them. The disaster of his marriage to Diana and Camilla's role in that unleashed unparalleled hostility to the monarchy at the time of Diana's death. Since then, attempts to spin Camilla and Charles as devoted old codgers or Camilla as a star-crossed loyal love destined for Charles's arms have never quite worked. Diana's story revealed Camilla as cynically involved in setting her up as a suitable and passive royal bride.

Nor has Charles since been able to set any example that might resonate with his subjects. During Diana's life, many saw his treatment of a well meaning, charismatic girl as unforgivable. After her death, partly as a result of the Burrell trial, we've heard how Michael Fawcett (Charles's factotum) threw unwanted gifts on the fire (no wonder the invitation to Charles and Camilla's wedding announces that "there is no wedding list") - as well as performing numerous other peculiar functions. We've heard how an allegation of gay rape was hushed up. We've seen the palace conduct its own inquiry and release the findings the day before the invasion of Iraq. We've even seen letters indicating just how alarmed Diana had become by hostility towards her.

Now, even as the wedding takes place, there's an ongoing inquest into Diana's death. Perhaps it won't ask why Diana was so afraid. But at the very least the public will expect to find out why the royal family agreed to have Diana's protection removed, leaving her to be hounded by the press and fall into the hands of Mohamed Al Fayed's so-called security. Diana's death also left a legacy of revelations about royal self-indulgence, cruelty, peculiar goings on and a remote aristocratic lifestyle.

Until I researched a book on Diana, such words as aristocracy and establishment seemed to refer to a powerless, semi-defunct species. But I encountered a stratum of people whose existence depends on finding royal favour and being part of the royal crowd. It's a world of double-barrelled names, polo matches, country sports and society weddings. Were it not that these days you can buy your way in with wealth and celebrity, it would be seriously inbred. Far from powerless, they own vast swaths of land and cultivate power and influence, mixing socially with politicians, media pundits and celebrities. The guest list to the "real" wedding in Windsor chapel, emerging slowly into the press, will tell you everything you need to know.

While researching the book, the most distasteful thing I encountered was the role royal sycophants played in Diana's life. Many of these titled and wealthy families closed ranks against her, providing Charles with safe houses to conduct his affair, keeping her in the dark and promoting the view that she was unstable.

I had a small insight into how Diana must have felt during an encounter with Jonathan Dimbleby, Charles's most vociferous public supporter, on the Today programme. It emerged, only once I was in the studio with him, that the BBC had agreed he could put his point of view without entering into discussion. He was allowed to speak after me and described my comments about Charles's failure to live up to the symbolic role of the monarchy as "poppycock on stilts". He then segued into a promotion of his own radio programme and his journalistic objectivity. The editor later wrote to apologise, but it's a shame Today listeners were deprived of the heated discussion that took place in the corridor afterwards.

Rancour like this follows Charles. Its not a simple division between "them" and "us", the toffs v the people. Charles also divides people along the lines of sex and race. There are still many women who feel Charles set a terrible example for husbands. Similarly there are many people in ethnic minorities who feel "the establishment" destroyed Diana, depriving them of their one friend in high places. If Charles fails to embody common values, how can he ever be a symbolic head of state?

Waiting in the wings is, of course, the figure who many believe will succeed where his father failed. Some see in William a healing figure, the son uniting Diana and Charles. They regard him as having the capacity to embody everything a monarch should. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. His milieu is probably not much different from his father's and his peculiarly unhappy upbringing may leave him even less suited to connect with the lifestyles of the population. And in 20 years, he, too, may be another balding Windsor.

The power of myth is strong - almost as strong as the desire to see the next episode of the soap opera - and republicans need to engage with what monarchy actually means to people rather than hold an abstract debate that excites no one. The fiasco around Charles's second wedding has exposed hypocrisies and contradictions in our constitution as well as a person ill-fitted to perform the symbolic function of royalty. Here's an opportunity to inflict some damage on an anachronistic institution. So why not get personal?


· Ros Coward is the author of Diana: The Portrait
rcoward@city.ac.uk

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

How on earth can someone be talking about the Windsors and politics? The Windsors aren't allowed to have anything to do with politics.

 

[Genevieve]

Let's get personal
Charles and Camilla's wedding is a chance to inflict some real damage

Ros Coward
Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian

Waiting in the wings is, of course, the figure who many believe will succeed where his father failed. Some see in William a healing figure, the son uniting Diana and Charles. They regard him as having the capacity to embody everything a monarch should. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. His milieu is probably not much different from his father's and his peculiarly unhappy upbringing may leave him even less suited to connect with the lifestyles of the population. And in 20 years, he, too, may be another balding Windsor.

The power of myth is strong - almost as strong as the desire to see the next episode of the soap opera - and republicans need to engage with what monarchy actually means to people rather than hold an abstract debate that excites no one. The fiasco around Charles's second wedding has exposed hypocrisies and contradictions in our constitution as well as a person ill-fitted to perform the symbolic function of royalty. Here's an opportunity to inflict some damage on an anachronistic institution. So why not get personal?


· Ros Coward is the author of Diana: The Portrait
rcoward@city.ac.uk

I think this is a lot of pressure to place on William. He is a young boy still who has had a trouble young life which was played out on a very public stage. While both of his parents loved him I think to some degree both also used him and Harry to further their plights.

William has also been isolated a lot during the last decade or so, first while he was at Eton and now at St. Andrew's. If he decides to go to military school St. James's palace will likely want further privacy for him until he is out of school. He's certainly not had as much exposure to being a monarch as his father had at his age.

 

[bigheadshirmp]

umm...just one question...do you think that Camilia will be wearing a tiara on her wedding day?

 

[wymanda]

No!

The wedding is in the afternoon not evening so tiara's won't be called for.

 

[bigheadshirmp]

No!

The wedding is in the afternoon not evening so tiara's won't be called for.

thank you very much wymanda

 

[bigheadshirmp]

will there be like a grand gala party after their wedding (like Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia's/ Prince Frederick and Mary's) ? is this known yet?

 

[wymanda]

No Problems.

It is a shame as it would be wonderful to see what tiara Camilla is given by the Queen but we shall have to wait for the first "Big Dressing" (as the Royals apparently call these events) to see if it is one of the many that haven't seen the light of day for many years.

HINT: If you have a look in the Royal Jewels section of TRF we have been discussing some of these pieces in a thread about Camilla and the Royal Jewels.

 

[bigheadshirmp]

actually...it doesn't really matter what tiara she's gonna wear...as long as she doesn't wear the ones worn by Diana i'd say...haha rite?!

i wanna see those grand gala dresses worn by different royals~!!! and this wedding seems to be this year's "BIGGEST" wedding ....soooo.....

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

It just announce that TRH Crown Prince Haakon and his wife Mette-Marit will be at the Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla.Also Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg,Queen beatrix,Prince W-A and Princess Maxima,Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

It's great that the other European Royals will be there.

 

[wymanda]

actually...it doesn't really matter what tiara she's gonna wear...as long as she doesn't wear the ones worn by Diana i'd say...haha rite?!

bigheadshrimp,
We have discussed this ad nauseum on the Royal Jewels section of TRF. The concensus of opinion has been that we will not see the Lovers Knot Tiara or any of the other jewels that were Diana's until such time as William & Harry have wives, if then. The royal collection is vast and there are many pieces that Camilla can be offered that haven't been worn since, at the latest, 1952 when Queen Mary passed over. Others belonged to Queen Alexandra, Queen Victoria & to Prince Phillips mother Princess Andrew. So as you can see there is no reason for Camilla to even be offered Diana's things and I think that the lady has far to much class & pride to even consider wearing them. She is her own person and is very confident in who she is (something she & Diana did not have in common!)