Monarchy -
HRH Prince Charles Wedding Farce
First there was the small
matter of deciding on the right venue for the
wedding. Then came the sensitive discussion as to
whether the nuptials would actually be legal. And
then there was the astrologer who declared the
date they'd set was inauspicious. But, to cap it
all, yesterday the Queen announced she would not
be attending the second marriage of her eldest
son, who will wed his long-term inamorata,
Camilla Parker Bowles, on 8 April 2005.
Buckingham Palace immediately went into damage
control mode, stressing that Her Majesty's
decision was not a "snub", but a way of
ensuring the civil ceremony, at the Guildhall in
Windsor, would remain a "low key"
affair, according to the wishes of the happy
couple. She would, Buckingham Palace said, attend
the blessing in Windsor Castle's St George's
Chapel before hosting the reception at Windsor
Castle. Prince William and Prince Harry are
expected to attend the Guildhall ceremony as well
as Mrs Parker Bowles' children Tom and Laura.
"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," said a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman.
"The Queen and the rest of the Royal Family
will, of course, be going to the service of
dedication at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.
She is very pleased to be giving the wedding
reception at the Castle." She added,
"The Queen is attending the service of
dedication and paying for the reception, this is
not a snub."
Among those questioning the implications of the
Queen's decision not to attend the civil ceremony
was David Starkey, the constitutional historian.
"We are into unknown territories with this
decision and one can only speculate on the reason
why," he said. "It could be security,
that she doesn't approve, or that she doesn't
care, a position which would unite her with the
majority of her subjects. There has been no real
precedent of this, and let's remember we are
dealing with the wedding of the heir to the
throne, where there has been this kind of
distance."
Despite the ambiguity of the Queen's position in
relation to the nuptials, the confusion
surrounding the organisation is clearly becoming
an embarrassment. The civil ceremony was switched
from Windsor Castle to the Guildhall, Windsor's
town hall, after the apparent oversight of a
licensing blunder. Royal aides apparently failed
to realise that obtaining a wedding licence in
the castle would mean that anyone would have been
able to apply to get married there for the
subsequent three years.
In a further setback, leading constitutional
lawyers expressed doubt over the legality of the
Prince marrying outside a church. While the Lord
Chancellor has insisted that the planned civil
ceremony is legal, the dispute appears to have
arisen from the interpretation of the 1836 and
1949 Marriage Acts. Royal experts warned that the
Queen's decision not to attend the ceremony
would, no matter how many regal denials and
explanations are issued, result in the inevitable
and widespread perception that she was
"snubbing" the union.
Dickie Arbiter, the Queen's former assistant
press secretary, said, "I think any parent
would be a bit fed-up with the way this has
unfolded. When it was announced there was a
tremendous fanfare but the goalposts have moved
considerably." And he warned, "It seems
they had not done their homework properly I do
not think we have seen the end of it; there will
be a lot more to come." Arthur Edwards, who
takes pictures of the Royal Family for The Sun,
was more outspoken, describing arrangements as a
"catalogue of cock-ups".
"It is just another snub," he said.
"This is your mother. Mothers always go to
your wedding whoever or wherever you are. This is
a lame excuse." Ian Lloyd, a commentator,
added, "On this occasion a lot of things
seem to be going wrong, the Royal Family will
hate that and the thought that it appears to be
out of control." Danielle
Demetriou
Prince
Charles's staff messed up his wedding venue
because they didn't tell registrars who they were
working for in a bid to keep the event secret.
Bungling courtiers tried to see if a civil
ceremony could be held at Windsor Castle without
saying it was for the prince and Camilla Parker
Bowles. A source said, "As it was done
anonymously, clearly something got lost in
translation."
The
wedding plans of Charles and Camilla descended
into more chaos after a priest vowed to DISRUPT
the ceremony. The Rev Paul Williamson said he
will stand up and declare the marriage illegal at
Windsor Guildhall. The threat is a major headache
for Palace officials who have been told they can
only stop him on security grounds. Mr Williamson,
of St George’s Church at Hanworth, West
London, said: “I am not a terrorist, I have
no criminal convictions. It will be impossible
for them to stop me from being there. I will
raise my objections and there is little anyone
can do about it.”
The
government is ready to mount a full-scale legal
defence at Prince Charles' wedding. Lord
Chancellor Charlie Falconer is illing to rush an
emergency Bill through Parllament, despite
insisting that the wedding IS lawful. He has
warned the Prime Minister the plans are
"unknown legal territory" and he
doesn't know what would happen if someone mounted
a tough legal challenge. An aide said, "A
simple two clause Bill would move things beyond
doubt."
Next >>>
Home
These articles
have been collected from various sources. If you
are the copyright owner of any of them, contact us for
either a credit and link to your site or removal
of the article.
--------------