Monarchy -
HRH Prince Charles Wedding Farce 3
The
Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles can
marry as it is their right under the Human Rights
Act, the Lord Chancellor has said in a written
statement to MPs. In a bid to quash confusion
surrounding the legality of the impending royal
wedding, Lord Falconer of Thoroton declared its
legality was "beyond doubt". He said a
civil ceremony would not break the law because
the royals were protected by the Human Rights Act
that came into force five years ago. The Lord
Chancellor was forced to issue the clarification
amid fears that the wedding could face
a formal challenge.
Lord Falconer faced a call for the swift repeal
of the laws governing royal weddings. Opposition
MPs said it was "absurd" for the state
to intervene in the marriage plans of
individuals, even if they were royal. David
Heath, the Liberal Democrat constitutional
affairs spokesman, said "members of the
Government should have nothing to do with whether
two individuals should get married". He
said, "Sensible people have been saying for
years that laws which govern the marriage
arrangements of the Royal Family are archaic. The
marriage arrangements are not something that
should be a matter for the Government."
Legal and constitutional commentators have been
questioning Lord Falconer's judgement in advising
the Queen that the civil wedding would be legal.
He has responded by invoking the Human Rights Act
which, he says, makes it clear that Prince
Charles has a right to marry in a civil ceremony
like anyone else in the UK. His reliance on the
Act, however, which enshrines a "right to
marry" without discrimination, is likely to
be questioned by lawyers. The situation is also
ironic as Prince Charles railed against the Act
in letters to Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord
Falconer's predecessor as Lord Chancellor.
As part of a letter-writing campaign to
Government, Prince Charles "bombarded"
ministers with his thoughts. He suggested the Act
"betrays a fundamental distortion of social
and legal thinking". Lord Falconer was
forced to make his statement and publish details
of the legal advice he gave to the Queen after
critics pointed out that two acts of parliament
had been invoked in the past to scupper Princess
Margaret marrying Group Captain Peter Townsend, a
divorcée, in 1955. The 1836 Marriage Act
specifies that civil marriages would not
"extend to the marriage of any of the Royal
Family."
And though the law on civil marriages was
repealed in 1949 by another Marriage Act, this
stated that "nothing in this Act shall
affect any law or custom relating to the marriage
of members of the Royal Family." Lawyers
said this proved the marriage would be illegal.
But Lord Falconer disagreed. "We are aware
that different views have been taken in the past;
but we consider that these were over-cautious,
and we are clear that the interpretation I have
set out in this statement is correct," he
said. "We also note that the Human Rights
Act has since 2000 required legislation to be
interpreted wherever possible in a way that is
compatible with the right to marry." Marie Woolf
Prince
Charles and his aides are still trying to find a
way round a law which grants the public
`unfettered access' to the ceremony, amid fears
it will be disrupted by protesters. The Prince's
advisers have already been warned of one specific
threat to the proceedings at Windsor Guildhall
from the legal establishment itself. According to
a highly placed Clarence House source,
"There are six senior lawyers, all of them
staunchly traditional in their views, who are
planning to lodge an objection to the wedding and
to interrupt proceedings. Word has reached the
Prince and he has asked his advisers to find a
way of making sure nothing like this
happens."
The Rev Paul Williamson, a London vicar, also
declared his intention to object at the register
office. He said, "I don't think the marriage
is valid. The Royal Family gets one chance, at a
church wedding - that's it. Charles and Camilla
fluffed two marriages. It's gross and
disgusting." According to senior police
sources involved in organising the ceremony,
health and safety rules could be used to bar the
public by declaring the Guildhall closed once the
maximum of 120 people are inside. In case not
enough guests arrive, 30 soldiers from Windsor
Barracks and Royal Navy personnel are to be put
on standby to attend to ensure the venue is full.
Charles's spokesman Paddy Harverson said,
"We are aware of this issue of public access
and it is under review but no decision has been
made as yet. There are still decisions to be made
in terms of who's attending the ceremony."
The plan to shut protesters out of the building
once again brings the arrangements for the Royal
Wedding into conflict with marriage law. This
says that once a notice of a civil marriage has
been posted, an objection can be lodged in
writing or in person with the registrar at any
time until the moment the couple become man and
wife.
Objections must be based on legal grounds and the
belief that 'the marriage compromises the
fundamental principles of English marriage law'.
The right to free access to object to a civil
marriage is enshrined in the 1995 Marriages
(Approved Premises) Regulations Act. It says,
"marriages must be solemnised in premises
with open doors, which the Registrar General
interprets that the public must have unfettered
access to witness the marriage and make
objections prior to or during the ceremony."
In an attempt to pre-empt any wedding day
protest, Charles is understood to be pushing for
an Enabling Act which allows a person or
corporation to take certain action. Charles
believes an Enabling Act is necessary to remove
any ambiguity over the legality of his wedding. Laura
Collins
<<<
Prev -------------------------------------------------------------------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.
--------------