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.
Splodger said:
Also she reproached her son who gave his future wife an engagement ring, a jewel that had belonged to the Queen Mother. The Queen was forceful in her message, so much so that apparently the Prince returned to Clarence House with tears in the eyes.

I really wonder how people know this stuff. Seeing that the Queen Mothers estate was left entirely to the Queen I can't see how Charles would have been able to give Camilla the ring without the Queen giving her blessing.
 
CIRENCESTER, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 21: The wedding banns for HRH Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles are displayed in the register office on February 21, 2005 in Cirencester, England. The Prince of Wales, who lives nearby in Tetbury, Gloucestershire is due to marry in Windsor on April 8, 2005. (Photo by Matt Cardy /Getty Images)
 

Attachments

  • 52224654.jpg
    52224654.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 243
  • 52224655.jpg
    52224655.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 157
  • 52224708.jpg
    52224708.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 135
  • 52224717.jpg
    52224717.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 205
AOL news

Prince wedding plans may be illegal



The Government has failed to give the Queen adequate advice over the legality of the Prince of Wales's planned marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, a former Attorney General said.

Sir Nicholas Lyell suggested that emergency legislation may be needed to clarify the legal position before the wedding, planned for April 8. Otherwise, the Royal couple might have to get married in Scotland, as the Princess Royal did when she wed for the second time in 1992.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, earlier insisted that the wedding will be legal, despite claims from experts that the law does not allow civil marriages for members of the Royal Family in England.

But Sir Nicholas, who was Attorney General between 1992 and 1997, said he felt "some disquiet" about the Government's advice to the Queen. "I don't think she has been given enough advice," he told the BBC Radio 4 PM programme.

"It is not really clear that this situation has been properly thought about. (I feel) some disquiet, because the last thing one wants is for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker-Bowles, or the Queen herself, embarrassed by this question."

Sir Nicholas said that he understood that the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages in England, had excluded the Royal Family, leaving them subject to historic laws requiring marriage in church.

"On what I know at the moment - and I don't claim to be a walking expert on this topic, but I've looked it up in recent days - I would first of all have done a very careful trawl of the very best legal opinion," he said.

"I think I would clarify the position by legislation. I wouldn't simply say that the 1949 Act is crystal clear, because far too many people don't agree with that."

Lord Falconer's belief that the 1949 Act covered the Royal Family contradicted the advice his predecessor Lord Kilmuir gave Princess Margaret when she gave up her plans to marry divorced Group Captain Peter Townsend in 1955, said Sir Nicholas.

"There are very serious question marks here," he said. "I hope Lord Falconer is right, but we certainly don't have chapter and verse and the Queen is entitled to receive the correct advice, through the Prime Minister, from the Attorney General and Lord Chancellor."
 
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2005/02/18/camillaweddingdress/

The design duo of Antonia Robinson and Anna Valentine has been chosen by Camilla Parker Bowles to design her wedding dress for her civil ceremony marriage to Prince Charles on April 8.

As Camilla has grown more confident as a public figure, she has also branched out with her fashion choices, adopting increasingly elegant styles. She first discovered Kensington-based Robinson Valentine in 2001 thanks to a friend's recommendation, and they have been vital in helping effect her style transformation.

One of the more notable Robinson Valentine creations the future Duchess of Cornwall has worn in recent years was the spectacular cream-coloured silk crepe evening gown with turquoise scarf and matching handbag she showed off at a charity ball at Somerset House in July 2002. Camilla later dazzled at the Fashion Rocks Prince's Trust benefit at the Albert Hall in October 2003, sporting a luxurious navy velvet gown with satin panels and sheer sleeves.

"Robinson Valentine are the smart label of choice for the younger country set," says John Davidson, fashion stylist for London Bride magazine. "They have a much more fashionable approach than many of their 'dressmaker' contemporaries and are very highly regarded in Camilla's circle, especially for their wedding dresses. They are like the English Vera Wang."

To top off the wedding outfit, Camilla has chosen the services of à la mode milliner Philip Treacy to design her hat. Philip, whose bold and exquisite designs have decked just about every famous head in the world from royalty to rock stars, is another long-term fashion favourite of Camilla's.

"I'm delighted and honoured," said the Irish-born milliner after learning the news.
 
cut1me said:
Prince wedding plans may be illegal

I really dont see the problem with passing a very simple peace of legislation. Despite a few missgivings as to the conduct of the marriage, the Queen who is responcible for her own family and house hold has given her blessing for Charles to marry Camilla. We live in the 21st centuary now and unless a fundemental shift in social policy is made to ban divorce and "puritise" the UK at all levels, such out of date restrictions could do with modernising. As for the legal documents of legislation, the Government can pass legislation within 24hrs or even term it emergency legislation and deal with the democratic part after (not as if it would be the first time). As for the wording... in addition to the lengthy "we's, do's and hearby's" can be as simple as

"All persons currently classed as members of the Royal Family by (previous act) shall have the right to engage in civil weddings, upon the permission of the sovereign without loosing their place in the line of succession or their royal status."

Such legislation will not bring the mechanics of the UK and commonwealth tumberling down around our ears. If the remaining commonwealth countries who currently have the Queen as their head of state such as Australia, dont like it, then they can eaither leave the commonwealth or have Prince Andrew acceed to their head of state in a split similar to Hannover and UK on Victoria's accession. The whole point of the Monarchy is that it is adaptable. It might be seen that Charles has shattered the mystery of Monarchy but by causing a fuss over civil weddings is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
 
GrandDuchess said:
CIRENCESTER, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 21: The wedding banns for HRH Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles are displayed in the register office on February 21, 2005 in Cirencester, England. The Prince of Wales, who lives nearby in Tetbury, Gloucestershire is due to marry in Windsor on April 8, 2005. (Photo by Matt Cardy /Getty Images)

I especially liked the occupation column: Prince of the United Kingdom. ;)
 
It's just been announced from Buckingham Palace that the Queen won't attend the civil wedding.
 
I just heard on the TV that the Queen will not be attending the civil ceremony.
 
Oops. Well, I don´t know what to be made of this news. I mean they already have cut down the number of guests but not to have the groom´s mother there is something else altogether. There must be other reasons for her decision.
 
perhaps for security reasons.

from the bbc website:

Queen to miss Camilla's wedding


_40288377_charles.jpg
The wedding is due to take place on 8 April in Windsor Guildhall

The Queen will not attend the civil marriage ceremony of her son and his new bride, says Buckingham Palace.

The Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles are getting married on 8 April at the Guildhall in Windsor.

Palace officials said the Queen will attend the church blessing afterwards and was happy to host the reception.

Prince William and Prince Harry, along with Mrs Parker Bowles' children, Tom and Laura, are planning to attend the civil ceremony.
 
james said:
It's just been announced from Buckingham Palace that the Queen won't attend the civil wedding.
Dennism said:
I just heard on the TV that the Queen will not be attending the civil ceremony.
What?!! Oh my, how should one "interpret" this?
 
Well, she obviously doesn't 'bless' the marriage, otherwise she would be going.
 
perhaps for security reasons.



Poor excuse if it´s true. That´s a reason they give far too often. What´s the point of her going out into the public then if they can´t protect her at a small hall or a visit to a village or a giant convention center?
 
Alright No plm What about other member Royal family??? who will attend???



Princess Anne ??

Earl of Wessex and His wife????

Zara Phillips??

Duke of York????

Wait and See...

Karla
 
I read in the danish newspaper that it is because the wedding is´t a church wedding, and therefore the queen won´t be there.
The reason to this is that Camilla is not royal so they have to be married in an ordinary townhall.
They cannot be married on windsor castle and this is just because she isn´t royal.

Betina
 
betina said:
I read in the danish newspaper that it is because the wedding is´t a church wedding, and therefore the queen won´t be there.
The reason to this is that Camilla is not royal so they have to be married in an ordinary townhall.
They cannot be married on windsor castle and this is just because she isn´t royal.

Betina

Camilla and Charles are not marrying at Windsor Castle because if they do, they would have to allow the public to marry there as well without the usual 3 year waiting period.

Bah, this whole business is leaving a bad taste in my mouth...
 
It is a little odd that QE2 won't witness the vows. I don't know about Charles's siblings but I read that all 4 of the children (Wills, Harry, Tom, Laura) will witness the vows.
 
This is getting weirder by the minute--Why I am not surprised??

Her Majesty the Queen is not attending the civil ceremony--well, that is a kick in the head to Charles!! :D I am finding the unfolding events of this occasion funnier and stranger as time moves on!:p

Today here in the USA, I read People Magazine's article about William and Harry's feelings about the marriage. While People magazine is essentially a "tabloid", Some of the observations were keen. They remarked upon how cuttingly short, even by royal standards, William and Harry's public statement was.

They noted that while they love their father and want him to be happy, this wedding does denigrate the memory of their mother somewhat--Camilla was a primary factor in the breakdown of the marriage. While William and Harry wish for their father's happiness and know Camilla makes him happy, they are not quite pleased with a wedding. William and Harry gave a hesitant approval to their father to marry Camilla, and will attend for their father's sake.

These poor boys have been through enough with all of this. I also say Camilla's children have been through enough. As a previous poster said on this thread: "This is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.":(

Another interesting theory proposed in the article was that Charles is going forward with the marriage due to the debacle of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Westminster's daughter to Charles godson. The Duke and Duchess were not going to sit Charles and Camilla together and they boycotted the wedding where the Queen, William, Harry, and many other royals attended smiling. If Charles and Camilla were married, they would have to have been placed together. Charles is ever trying more and more to regularize Camilla's position. He is fighting an uphill battle!
 
According to Yahoo News/Reuters, the Queen isn't attending her eldest son's wedding to respect his and Camilla's wishes to keep the wedding "low key."




http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/reuters/brand/SIG=pd7i95/*http://www.reuters.com British Queen to Miss Wedding of Charles to Camilla


[size=-1]By Peter Griffiths[/size] LONDON (Reuters) - [size=-1]Britain's Queen Elizabeth will not attend the wedding of her eldest son Prince Charles to his long-time partner Camilla Parker Bowles, adding to an air of chaos that has surrounded plans for the day. [/size]







The queen planned to stay away to respect the couple's wish for a low-key wedding, the palace said. But some royal watchers said the move would further embarrass the royal family and add to an air of farce around the April 8 ceremony.



"Mothers always go to your wedding whoever or wherever you are," royal photographer Arthur Edwards told Sky News. "It is just another snub."



The wedding has been dogged by controversy since it was announced on Feb. 10, with newspapers claiming the queen and the heir to her British throne are engaged in a bitter row over how some of the marriage plans have unravelled.



Charles was forced to change the venue from Windsor Castle, the queen's royal residence west of London, to Windsor Town Hall because of difficulties in getting a license for the castle that would not force it to throw the doors open to the public.



Constitutional experts have been arguing over whether members of the royal family are even allowed to marry in a civil ceremony in England.



"It has gone from a smooth operation to a fuss and now a farce," constitutional expert David Starkey told Reuters.



Under the headline "The War of the Windsors," the top-selling tabloid Sun newspaper reported this week that the queen is "horrified" by aspects of the wedding.



The paper said the queen was unhappy that the venue had to be changed and that the original plan for a low key event had started to spiral into something bigger.



Some opinion polls suggest the British public is opposed to the marriage of the Prince of Wales and Parker Bowles.



"This will further split the country, with people saying 'does the queen really believe in this marriage'," royal commentator James Whitaker told BBC News 24.



Buckingham Palace rejected suggestions of a row, stressing the queen would attend a church blessing of the couple by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to be held after the service.



"The queen will not be attending the civil ceremony because she is aware that the prince and Mrs Parker Bowles wanted to keep the occasion low key," the palace said in a statement.



Constitutional expert Lord St John of Fawsley said the queen was right not to attend the civil service.



"It would have served no useful purpose," he told the BBC.



Charles was divorced in 1996 from the late Princess Diana, whose youthful beauty, charm and later marital difficulties captivated the British tabloid press for years.



Parker Bowles has faced an uphill struggle to escape the shadow of Diana, whose sudden death in a 1997 Paris car crash caused an unprecedented outpouring of grief in a nation which once prided itself on its stiff upper lip.

Camilla is widely depicted in the tabloid press as the "other woman" who has held Charles's affections since he first met her in 1970 and was considered by Diana to be the third person in her marriage to the prince. (Additional reporting by Matt Jones)
 
betina said:
I read in the danish newspaper that it is because the wedding is´t a church wedding, and therefore the queen won´t be there.

Can you imagine the security nightmare of the Queen attending this service. You can count on the fact that there are going to be some unpleasent scenes with Dianarites out to cause trouble. I would say that HM has been advised by the Royal Protection Squad that it is in her interest not to attend.
 
Oh come on! It breaks my heart to face up to this but the situation,unpleasant as it is, is staring us all in the face. The Queen dosn't want to go to this wedding. She has already attended Prince Charles' original wedding and as a devout member of the Church of England she can't condone this. I don't condem her for trying to paper over the cracks that exist as she's trying to protect the Monarchy but I'm afraid that due to her son's pig-headedness we are probanbly witnessing the deaththroes of this great institution.
 
I think that is just a little bit extreme. This isn't exactly the downfall of the British monarchy. It is just a minor thing.
 
For Heaven's sake!

The Queen will not be at the ceremony but she WILL be at the PrayerService... and she's throwing the reception... not exactly a cold shoulder to the pair.

Maybe she isn't happy about the lack of church ceremony but she IS still taking part in the day.
 
trinny said:
For Heaven's sake!

The Queen will not be at the ceremony but she WILL be at the PrayerService... and she's throwing the reception... not exactly a cold shoulder to the pair.

Maybe she isn't happy about the lack of church ceremony but she IS still taking part in the day.
The point is, she still isn't going to the actual wedding. She can miss the other events, but missing a wedding is a major decision, that will be interpreted as the queen not being too happy with the whole situation.
 
Last edited:
Dennism said:
I just heard on the TV that the Queen will not be attending the civil ceremony.

One royal correspontent says that the queen has never atteded a civil marraige before will not attend this one to "preserve her dignity." I don't know what is supposed to be undignified about a civil wedding and other monarchs attend them. If this is the reason then it just shows how out of touch with reality Elizabeth really is.(Not that anyone in Britain needs any proof of that.)
 
Danielle said:
The point is, she still isn't going to the actual wedding. She can miss the other events, but missing a wedding is a major decision, that will be interpreted as the queen not being too happy with the whole situation.
A bit like having it both ways.

Clever of them to have two separate ceremonies; the Queen can avoid the first to keep certain sections of the public happy, but she will host the second in her "own home", and have the whole family together.

And if there's a bit of "controversy"?
So be it. Look to the long term.

Most people will get over it. In a few years time we will ask what all the fuss was about.
 
wymanda said:
Can you imagine the security nightmare of the Queen attending this service. You can count on the fact that there are going to be some unpleasent scenes with Dianarites out to cause trouble. I would say that HM has been advised by the Royal Protection Squad that it is in her interest not to attend.


UH, gee, if William and Harry can attend, why can't HM?? I think HM has put her foot down finally and thank God for that!! This whole thing has turned into a chaotic nightmare.

AND by the way, not everyone who loves Diana is a troublemaker!!!!!!
 
tiaraprin said:
UH, gee, if William and Harry can attend, why can't HM?? I think HM has put her foot down finally and thank God for that!! This whole thing has turned into a chaotic nightmare.

AND by the way, not everyone who loves Diana is a troublemaker!!!!!!

tiaraprin,
It isn't just the Dianarites who could cause security problems but the whole terrorist threat. The RPS (Royal Protection Squad) can control things within the castle but the Guildhall is a public place in the centre of town. Can you imagine anything more catastrophic than a terrorist attack on a gathering where the monarch, heir & next two in line are all present?????? Similiar scenario which does not allow Charles & William to fly on the same plane.

BTW, has it been said that "The Queen will not attend" or that "The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh will not attend"? if the former then it is highly likely that Phillip will be at the ceremony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom