View Full Version : Impediments to Charles/Camilla wedding
02-17-2005, 01:07 PM
What's up what with all of the supposed impediments to the wedding between the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles? Is it true they can't marry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4262943.stm) in a civil ceremony in England & Wales? Apparntly they've had to have a change of venue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4274839.stm) since Windser Castle isn't available to every couple wanting to get married. Does parliament need to pass an act for them to marry outside the church? Once they officially give notice at the Registry Office can anybody fill an objection? Who reviews the objections? Could they delay the wedding?
I think the problem is that Windsor Castle is booked for the date they wanted. They tried to get the other couple to change the date, but they already had a deposit down on the caterer and hired a band, so they couldn't change. Then they were thinking of going up to Scotland, but the guests wouldn't want to travel that far.
I just want to know where they're going to be registered.
02-17-2005, 09:41 PM
I thought one of the major impediments to the wedding was that it's illegal anywhere in Great Britain for a human to marry a mule.
As for where they're registered, my guess would be Target.
OK, I will answer a bit more seriously now.
The answer according to the BBC's website on this
is that the only person who had to give approval was the Queen.
Obviously, if Tony Blair had said, "No, I absolutely forbid it." It likely wouldn't have happened.
Does the OP intend to go to the wedding and speak up at the part when asked if anyone knows any reason why the two shouldn't be wed?
02-17-2005, 10:51 PM
In short, according to the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, any royal has to have the permission of the Soverign in order to marry. However, if the royal is over 25 (as Charles is), then he can still get married even without the Soverign's permission by providing one year's notice to the Privy Council. The only other possible obstacle would be Parliament passing a law that the marriage was illegal.
By getting the Queen's permission, he avoided a year-long wait.
02-18-2005, 12:18 AM
But is it legal for a member of the royal family to marry in a civil ceremony? According to the BBC article the act that legalized civil marriage in England exempted the royal family, and therefore Charles & Camila can't have a civil wedding in England or Wales. Is the BBC right? While I'm sure Clarence House consulted legal advisers before they made the announcment, and they believe a civil wedding is legal. They also though they could hold the ceremony at Windser Castle and they were wrong about that; are they wrong about this? It would cause a much bigger problem with the wedding plans than a change of venue.
The news stories I read said that Windsor Castle was ruled out because it would have been too much of a hassle.
02-18-2005, 01:02 AM
The "hassle" would have been allowing other couples to get married there. In the UK in order for a venue to be licenced for civil wedding it has to available for rent any couple wishing to have their wedding their for at least 3 years. There are special rules for people confined to hospitals and prisions.
The counterargument to the objection to a civil marriage is (1) there is some doubt whether the crucial clause in the 1836 Marriage Act ever intended to prevent members of the Royal Family contracting civil marriages, as opposed to exempting them from the specific restrictions on such marriages and (2) much of the 1836 Act was superceded by the 1949 Marriage Act, so the royal exemption applies to an Act which is now largely redundant.
Admittedly, the view that this did prevent royal civil marriages was the one that found favour with the government lawyers when the issue arose in 1955 in connection with Princess Margaret. But the government lawyers have now taken a different view. If this seems a bit too convenient, remember that it was equally convenient for the government of the day in 1955 to block Princess Margaret's plans. As the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, had himself divorced and remarried, finding a technical legal objection, as opposed to a moral one, was always going to be more expedient.
Actually, it is far more likely that the government lawyers then and now have just given independent - but different - advice.
(If the palace officials had been really smart, they would got a licence for Holyroodhouse and then cashed in on it as a wedding venue for hire.)
02-18-2005, 06:15 AM
I think the problem is that Windsor Castle is booked for the date they wanted. They tried to get the other couple to change the date, but they already had a deposit down on the caterer and hired a band, so they couldn't change. Then they were thinking of going up to Scotland, but the guests wouldn't want to travel that far.Maybe they could have a double wedding, then a fight could break out over a spilled pint in the beer tent, with Camilla screaming "Leave it Charlie, he's not worth it!"
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.