Charles and Camilla to Marry: February 10, 2005


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Australian said:
I just heard on TV that Charles and Camilla's marriage could be illegal because if they are having a civil marriage then it cannot be recognized

this is on the bbc website an excerpt from what was on tv yesterday:




Panorama: Lawful impediment?





_40816295_charlescamilla203.jpg
The Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles



Two years ago Panorama outlined the difficulties Prince Charles would face if he tried to marry Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles. Last week Clarence House announced the marriage would go ahead and insists everything is now in order.

Serious obstacles in the way of marriage have been overcome but Panorama reveals that they may have been replaced by a new one, with some legal experts now questioning how a civil marriage in England can be within the laws that govern the royal family.

According to one opinion, voiced by Stephen Cretney QC, Emeritus Fellow in Legal History at Oxford University, the situation may be

"... that although there has been a ceremony and that has led to public rejoicing the Prince of Wales is not married and the... Mrs Parker Bowles is not his wife. And that would be a very, very serious matter."

One Act in particular, in the view of lawyers Panorama spoke to, may pose serious legal problems for the civil marriage planned for Charles and Camilla. In 1836 Parliament passed the Marriage Act which allowed people, for the first time, to have civil rather than church marriages. However, the Royal family was specifically exempted from the law and apparently barred from civil marriages.

o.gif
start_quote_rb.gif
Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal family
end_quote_rb.gif



The Marriage Act, 1949

In 1949 that Act was updated by a new Marriage Act. This is still the main Act regulating marriage in this country. It retained many features of the 1836 Act - including the Royal exemption. It states that

"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal family."

Prince Charles' spokesman at Clarence House told Panorama that the Prince had taken advice from four legal experts. Their judgement was that the 1949 Act is not a continuation of the old legislation. It's a completely new act, and therefore does not carry over the bar on royals having civil marriages. But according to Stephen Cretney QC

"The 1949 Act is a consolidation Act. A consolidation Act does not change the law except in the most minor ways and all it does is to bring together the visions previously scattered amongst the large number of other acts."

o.gif
start_quote_rb.gif
... it is not open to the two of them to follow the normal procedures of a registry marriage.
end_quote_rb.gif



Valentine Le Grice QC

This is supported by Valentine Le Grice QC, a specialist in family law, who says

"It would not be possible for them to get married. By the way in which most people would understand a registry marriage ... it is not open to the two of them to follow the normal procedures of a registry marriage."

If the 1949 Marriage Act does indeed pose a problem and would prevent a civil wedding at Windsor, then there are a number of solutions:
  • Prince Charles could use the Human Rights Act to challenge the 1949 Act. But that would involve court cases and a change in the law.
  • The couple could get married in Scotland, where the law is different.
  • The couple could opt for a common law marriage something which the 18th century Clandestine Marriages Act, abolished for everyone except royals.
  • Or, perhaps the most straightforward solution, Parliament could act swiftly to pass legislation to correct the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sara, if Diana were here, she'd be perfectly happy for Charles to marry Camilla, as long as he took himself off to Italy or something and left her in charge of preparing William for the throne in a way that suited her and allowed her to be in the position of being the power behind the heir and eventually behind the throne.

Do you honestly think the Queen would have stood for that?
 
It will be hard enough for William's future wife to live in the shadow of the dead Diana; imagine her position if Diana was still alive.
 
Alexandria said:
By all accounts, even by Diana's own account, Charles has always been a good father to his sons. He may not have been a very good husband, and not necessarily a good son or brother, but he's always been a good father whatever his other shortcomings are or may be.

alexandria,

what are you referring to?
I have never been aware of more faults.
 
I am sure that the Queen has sought legal opinions independant of those Charles obtained to ensure that everything remains legal and above board. She is not a woman to take risks or rely on one source of advice.
I also wonder about the difference, if any, between a civil ceremony and a Registry marriage? I would assume that a celebrant would perform the civil ceremony as opposed to a judge, magistrate or whomever performs the registry service. Perhaps that is the difference? :|
 
Discussions were held between Buckingham Palance, Clarence House, the Prime Minister, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I think we can be pretty confident that all is above board!
 
Church of England Implications:

I am always a little surprised over the issue of divorce and re-marriage within the Church of England.

I am bemused why people feel that Charles should not marry Camilla beacuse he is the future Head of the Church of England and that divorce is wrong. The Church of England owes its entire existance to a chubby, bearded gentleman of the 16th centuary who wanted a divorce.

Henry VIII, one of histories most famous adulterers, broke with the Roman Catholic Church when the Pope refused to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry his pregnant mistress Anne Bolyn. Therefore, Henry established his own church based on protistant principles - The Church of England - and made himself the supream head of the institution so he could do exactly what he wanted and get a divorce... two of them in fact (catherine of aragon & anne of cleves).

I cant help but find it surprising that people wish to condem Charles' wedding to Camilla based on religious values beacuse he will one day be head of the Church of England, when the Church's first leader established it so he could get divorced and marry his mistress.
 
As I understand it the PM has perhaps the most important role and the final say in the matter,

the queen made her decision after talking with blair.

PM Bladwin did not allow edward to marry mrs simpson

PM eden decided that margaret would not receive an income if she married townsend (margaret said that the teachings of the curch of england were her reasons but I read somewhere that she would have found it very difficult to leave her royal lifestyle)
 
aninhas said:
ACC, he made Diana's life miserable... and Camilla helped him a lot... Yeah, they can marry but he NEVER will be King, neeeeever!

Diana made her own life miserable. She brought all her unhappiness on herself.
 
wymanda said:
tiaraprin,
there is a verse in the bible that says "Let he who is without sin caste the first stone"
I dont think that any of us are perfect or candidates for sainthood so how about we lay off the name calling. I don't notice anyone calling Diana an adulteress and yet she did her share of enticing and sleeping with other womens husbands.

Very well said! Unfortunately the "Di-maniacs" can't see her very many faults.
 
I am sure that the Queen has sought legal opinions independant of those Charles obtained to ensure that everything remains legal and above board. She is not a woman to take risks or rely on one source of advice.
I also wonder about the difference, if any, between a civil ceremony and a Registry marriage? I would assume that a celebrant would perform the civil ceremony as opposed to a judge, magistrate or whomever performs the registry service. Perhaps that is the difference? :|

I think the difference is the location. Usually these marriages take place in the Registrar's office; in this case the Registrar of marriages will be going to Windsor Castle to preside over the marriage there. I know they've done quite a lot of changes to civil marriages since I moved away from the UK; nowadays they can be celebrated in many places, not just Registrars' offices. Maybe someone who still lives in the UK can give us some information.
 
Before the partisans on either side get into another fight, please be considerate of other people when you post. We've been having to delete posts and deal with upset members constantly for the last couple of days, and it really shouldn't be necessary. This is a topic that's touching people's emotions on both sides, and everybody should be bearing in mind that the people on the other side of the argument are just as capable of getting their feelings hurt.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
 
Iain said:
Diana made her own life miserable. She brought all her unhappiness on herself.

Iain,
Whilst I ceased to be a fan of Diana some time ago I must, in part, disagree with you. It takes two to tango and Diana & Charles made each other unhappy. Thankfully they had the courage to separate and not do something stupid like remaining together "for the children" or, in their case "for the monarchy". Even had Diana lived they were both entitled to make new lives for themselves and attempt to find some happiness.

I am becoming very angry with those who say "Charles has no right to happiness" etc, etc, etc. Every human being has that right.

I am sure that Diana would have found another companion whether it was Dodi or someone else.

I think we should all give Charles a break and join together in wishing him and Camilla happiness. Diana is dead and all our vitriole against Camilla isn't going to bring her back.
 
Although I am not a big fan of Camilla, I am very happy for the two of them. We will never know the true story of Charles and Diana, no matter how many gossip magazines we buy or how many books on the story we read. The whole truth lies in the memories of Charles, Camilla. Diana and the royal family. Charles and Camilla have been through many many years together and obviously has a very deep friendship, if not love. I am very happy that they are finally able to get married to each other. I wish them the very best and all the happiness in the world.
 
Elspeth said:
Before the partisans on either side get into another fight, please be considerate of other people when you post. We've been having to delete posts and deal with upset members constantly for the last couple of days, and it really shouldn't be necessary. This is a topic that's touching people's emotions on both sides, and everybody should be bearing in mind that the people on the other side of the argument are just as capable of getting their feelings hurt.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
And to think that some people claim the British Monarchy is either irrelevent or will fade away because of indifference!

The emotions this has stirred up is something to behold.
 
Warren said:
QUOTE I think we should all give Charles a break and join together in wishing him and Camilla happiness. Diana is dead and all our vitriole against Camilla isn't going to bring her back.
..............................
Well said Wymanda, but I don't think appeals to rationality, logic or simple good-naturedness will make any difference. Just watch the response to your post!

I seccond that motion!
 
wymanda said:
I am becoming very angry with those who say "Charles has no right to happiness" etc, etc, etc. Every human being has that right.
I never said he doesnt have the right to be happy,thats everyone's right,te matter was if he deserves happinness,after all the pain he cuased to his wife and children.if he still loved Camilla he didnt have the right to marry someone else
 
Elspeth said:
Sara, if Diana were here, she'd be perfectly happy for Charles to marry Camilla, as long as he took himself off to Italy or something and left her in charge of preparing William for the throne in a way that suited her and allowed her to be in the position of being the power behind the heir and eventually behind the throne.

Do you honestly think the Queen would have stood for that?

Do you have any articles that would suggest that Diana would want Charles to go to Italy so that she could prepare William for the throne in her own way?

Anyway...give me a break. SOunds like some ppl are as hostile to Diana as others are hostile to Camilla. You and others are just as ignorant as you claim others who are against Camilla to be. Do you honestly think that Diana would try to influence William in a manipulative way. SHe was grwoing up her last few years, but I guess you just can't see that. I think that you and other ppl who blast Diana and seem to forget that it does take two to tango-not three! Hello Camilla was totally involved in Diana's and Charles' marriage. And although some say that Diana was the 1st one to have an affair, Charles' attention was with Camilla. Camilla did everything to intimidate and make Diana more insecure. SHe also knew that Charles could not take a young, needy lady like Diana. AN dso she waits patiently and now this mess. This is a repeat of history I guess. You guys who lambast Diana and totally don't see Camilla for who she is (or was) are weird.

Wait flashbulb. Din't Diana ask Camilla to stay out of the marriage? Does not the Bible say that if you have fault with your brother go to him. Well did not Diana do that? And what did Camilla do...

But I guess the ends justify the means.
 
ANd ppl do deserve to be happy, but they should also be dutiful. I am glad that Charles and Camilla are getting married cuz the alternative was not good at all. However I am against that she gets the HRH status and even a title. They could have had a ceremnoy where she did not get a title. That would have been more suitable. But I think that it is more suitable that Charles not accede to the throne. So many things have been compromised cuz of this. The British monarchy and institution has been assaulted. This is a very dark period for the British monarchy and I pray that William and his heirs will help to set things right. WHo would have known years ago that this mess would happen. This is what happens when one has a spoiled son like Charles.
 
cute_girl said:
I never said he doesnt have the right to be happy,thats everyone's right,te matter was if he deserves happinness,after all the pain he cuased to his wife and children.if he still loved Camilla he didnt have the right to marry someone else

We can not view Royal marriages in the same way we would view our own. I can not condone adultary, however royal marriages do not work like normal peoples marriages.

Until very recently, members of Royal Families HAD to marry other Prince and Princesses and would lose their status if they married 'beneath' them. This was to preserve the blood line which was important in the days when they beleived in divine right, and also to form political alliences... they did not always marry for love!

When Carles married Diana, the situation was not that much different. How can we beleive he really wanted to marry her when she was selected as having met the criteria for a pure, inocent, virgin girl with no skeletons to come out of the closet and harm the monarchy in scandle. I forget her name but one of Charle's other girlfriends in the 70s was promptley ditched when scandle tarnished her name.

Charles married Diana because short of being royal her self, she was the ideal bride for the future King of the United Kingdom - but not neccesserily the ideal bride for Charles Windsor who happend to be the future King. Diana was neive as she was inocent. I admit it was unfair for a 19 year old girl, socialy alkwerd, the forgotten daughter of a broken home herself, to be plunged into the "institution" of the British Royal Family. However the blame rests on her own parents as much as Charles. I fail to beleive that no one in the Spencer family knew about Charles and Camilla. Charles had dated, if not at the very least been good friends with one of Diana's elder sisters (I forget if it was Jane or Sarah) in the mid 1970s, and later Jane's future husband was a member of the Queen's senior staff. They must have known, but they obviously didnt let that stop them marrying Diana off to bring the Spencer family into the heart of the Royal Court and Royal Favour.

Had the Prince of Wales just been Mr. Charles Windsor his choice to marry Diana would be wrong, however we the people wanted him to marry Diana, we wanted the fairy tale princess, we to a certain extent ensured he had to marry an inocent girl like Diana beacuse we the people are the first to condem anyone when their skeletons are dragged from the closet. By popular demand and traditional value we created a situation whereby the future King had to be married to the most prettiest woman, who looked great, and didn't say much to embaress anyone or have any bright idea's of changing the institution... but she did... she turned out to be too sucessfull and too powerfull - she back fired on the Court and caused more damage to the Royal Family than any Republican could given the chance. She told the world what we should never have known and she destroyed the fairy tale . Our fairy tale gone we then turned our own anger on Charles and Camilla for depriving us of the fairy tale princess we wanted.

Diana was too neive. She beleived in the Fairy Tale that the Windsors, the Spencors and ALL the public created for her. She beleived she was marrying a perfect man who was the perfect Prince Charming. She was too young and to inexperienced to know that real life in any marriage was not a fairy tale, least of all a Royal marriage. I feel for Diana, she was a remarkable woman, and did a great deal of good for the people. I can not imagine how she felt when she knew her husband and gone to see Camilla on their wedding night. However Princesses do not blab to the press. Princesses except that they have duties to the institution and the state and their first love should be their people. Unlike the rest of us, they must love, honour and obay the people, not just each other. Diana was not prepaired for what awaited her and so the hurt she felt must have been bad as it was probably the biggest lie anyone could have told. But Charles alone didn't do it, we all did it.

This disastor was also our fault. Until we can stop our selves criticising people and condeming them for their mistakes. Until we stop buying news papers who are printed not to tell news but to make money, we are all guilty for buying into the fairy tale that destroyed diana. Prince Haakon of Norway made one massive bold step in marrying a single mother. I can't even begine to think what would happen if Prince William was to do the same in the UK - it would never be alowed - the poor girl would be stripped off all dignity by the cheap tabloids people take as truth. This was the fear the Palace had when Charles needed a bride and that is why Diana was chosen. Although Charles could have said no - would we have let him?
 
I fail to beleive that no one in the Spencer family knew about Charles and Camilla. Charles had dated, if not at the very least been good friends with one of Diana's elder sisters (I forget if it was Jane or Sarah) in the mid 1970s, and later Jane's future husband was a member of the Queen's senior staff. They must have known, but they obviously didnt let that stop them marrying Diana off to bring the Spencer family into the heart of the Royal Court and Royal Favour.

The Spencers would have never stopped the wedding. They wanted in with the Royal Family too badly. They wanted Charles and Diana's sister to get together. They always joked that Diana would marry Andrew, hence her childhood nickname, Duchess.



The thing that makes me really mad about Camilla is she wants the best of both worlds. I cannot believe she will not take on any royal duties.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1482134,00.html

I can not imagine how she felt when she knew her husband and gone to see Camilla on their wedding night.


Is there any proof of this? I know he was on the phone with Camilla, but I don’t think they saw each other on the wedding night.
 
Binky said:
The thing that makes me really mad about Camilla is she wants the best of both worlds. I cannot believe she will not take on any royal duties.[/color]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1482134,00.html


Uh, maybe just me, but doesn't Camilla already have certain organizations that she works closely with? All the other Crown Princesses have had some time to acclimatize to their role, and few of them chose their patronages straight away. Why should Camilla be any different?

Certainly it would be nice to see her along with Charles on the trip, but let's wait until after the wedding to see whether or not Camilla will take on the royal duties.
 
Alexandria said:
Could you please post these articles Alisa? I'm curious to know what these articles have to say and judge for myself if the stories are accurate or not.

I cannot go back and find every single article that I have read on the subject. However, the Daily Mail just yesterday printed a story semi-related to Harry's feelings towards Camilla.

Harry taunted over wicked stepmother
 
norwegianne said:
Uh, maybe just me, but doesn't Camilla already have certain organizations that she works closely with? All the other Crown Princesses have had some time to acclimatize to their role, and few of them chose their patronages straight away. Why should Camilla be any different?

Certainly it would be nice to see her along with Charles on the trip, but let's wait until after the wedding to see whether or not Camilla will take on the royal duties.

as far as i can read in the times article it says that she might not go with charles to washington, that must be a decsicion she does not take alone and something that is meant for the benefit of all concerned.

the work she does at the moment is charitable and has been offered to her because of her position and it would be strange if she did not accept it and do her best.

going with charles to washington is not the same
 
Elspeth said:
Sara, if Diana were here, she'd be perfectly happy for Charles to marry Camilla, as long as he took himself off to Italy or something and left her in charge of preparing William for the throne in a way that suited her and allowed her to be in the position of being the power behind the heir and eventually behind the throne.

Do you honestly think the Queen would have stood for that?

no! i dont think so about Queen have stood!

Sara Boyce
 
HMQueenElizabethII said:
When Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen mother and Her Royal Highness Princess margaret still alive,they did not approve with the marriage of Charles and Camilla.

yeah i agree!

HM Queen Mother would knew about she told Prince Charles dont married to Camilla because she homewrecker!

Queen Mother accepted as Prince Edward's finacee Sophie-Rhys Jones enter Royal Family for 6 years because Sophie been together with Edward more years long time as girlfriends because Sophie always obey 2 Queens i respect Sophie.

im not sure about Queen Mother accept Lady Diana Spencer? and Sarah Ferguson?

Sara Boyce
 
Alisa said:
I cannot go back and find every single article that I have read on the subject. However, the Daily Mail just yesterday printed a story semi-related to Harry's feelings towards Camilla.

I wasn't asking you to go back and find every single article you've read on the subject, but since you offered up in your previous post that you had read "a lot" about how William and Harry "really" felt, I was curious to read them for myself. It seemed like a pretty general and strong statement to make without offering any articles in support of your point.

norwegianne said:
Uh, maybe just me, but doesn't Camilla already have certain organizations that she works closely with? All the other Crown Princesses have had some time to acclimatize to their role, and few of them chose their patronages straight away. Why should Camilla be any different?

The one organization I know Camilla is a chair for is the Osteperosis organization. Her mother suffered from it and it affected Camilla or at least interested her enough to serve as a head of it. I think she attended some international conference on some years back at which Queen Rania was in attendance, too.

I think Camilla deserves some time to settle into her formal role, too. While she has been part of Charles's life for many, many years, she hasn't been part of his life in such a formal manner. Just because she's been around the royal family for so many years, it has always been on the outskirts of it and just because she is older than the other Crown Princesses who have recently joined royal families, Camilla deserves the same amount of a learning curve granted to her. It's not fair to expect Camilla to jump in feet first into taking on royal duties and patronages.
 
Alexandria said:
I wasn't asking you to go back and find every single article you've read on the subject, but since you offered up in your previous post that you had read "a lot" about how William and Harry "really" felt, I was curious to read them for myself. It seemed like a pretty general and strong statement to make without offering any articles in support of your point.

I suggest that you go back and actually read my previous posts Alexandria. I have added them to this discussion. I never claimed to have read "alot" of articles or that they described how William and Harry "really" felt. You are quoting words that I have never written.

Alisa said:
I have read articles that indicate that both boys have always been split on their father's relationship with Camilla. Prince William it has been said has always been nonchalant about his father's relationship with Camilla, while Prince Harry has always viewed Camilla as the main cause in the ending of his parents marriage.

Any way the official story is that both boys are pleased with their father's decision and that is for now the story.

Alisa said:
I cannot go back and find every single article that I have read on the subject. However, the Daily Mail just yesterday printed a story semi-related to Harry's feelings towards Camilla.

Harry taunted over wicked stepmother
 
Church of England Implications:

I am always a little surprised over the issue of divorce and re-marriage within the Church of England.

I am bemused why people feel that Charles should not marry Camilla beacuse he is the future Head of the Church of England and that divorce is wrong. The Church of England owes its entire existance to a chubby, bearded gentleman of the 16th centuary who wanted a divorce.

Henry VIII, one of histories most famous adulterers, broke with the Roman Catholic Church when the Pope refused to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry his pregnant mistress Anne Bolyn. Therefore, Henry established his own church based on protistant principles - The Church of England - and made himself the supream head of the institution so he could do exactly what he wanted and get a divorce... two of them in fact (catherine of aragon & anne of cleves).

I cant help but find it surprising that people wish to condem Charles' wedding to Camilla based on religious values beacuse he will one day be head of the Church of England, when the Church's first leader established it so he could get divorced and marry his mistress.

Just because his ancestor did it, doesn't mean Charles should repeat his mistake. Heck, my ancestors butchered and persecuted non-Catholics but that doesn't mean I should go doing the same thing.

The best he can do is to learn from the past mistake of his ancestor and make the best example he can for the future. Not compound the whole fiasco! I don't think that a "hey! Congratulations, you followed Henry VIII's example of divorce, re-marriage, and adultery!" would sound so complimenting.

*sigh* I think I need to take a break from this whole thing. Just the issue is making my blood pressure rise and my blood boil. I feel like howling at my perception of the immorality of it all.
 
Last edited:
"Do you have any articles that would suggest that Diana would want Charles to go to Italy so that she could prepare William for the throne in her own way?"


She said something along those lines in the Panorama interview - something about how much better it'd be if he and "his lady" took themselves off to Italy or something. She's also been quoted numerous times about how she was wanting to train William to be king.

"You and others are just as ignorant as you claim others who are against Camilla to be. Do you honestly think that Diana would try to influence William in a manipulative way."

Actually, yes, I do. I think she was wanting to turn him into a king in her own image - compassionate, emotional, informal - everything she believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Windsors weren't. She was trying to raise a Spencer, not Windsor, king (probably hence her brother's pledge to her at her funeral to continue her work in that direction).

Also, I'm not anti-Diana. I know that people who utter a breath of criticism about her are considered to be anti-Diana, but things aren't that clear-cut. I think she was in a terrible position and was clearly unequal to coping with it and had very little help, but I also think that she wasn't blameless, and it was annoying to see her and the press claiming otherwise. I just got thoroughly fed up with the Saint Diana, evil Charles stuff we were continually hearing about. She took a bad situation and made it worse by her response to it and then blamed everybody but herself. Charles and Camilla both also behaved badly, but Diana behaved badly right along with them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom