ROYAL WEDDING FARCE

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
 

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." (Source: The Independent)

Financial trouble hit the royal wedding with calls for Buckingham Palace to contribute to the cost of policing the event. The wedding was put back by 24 hours to enable the Prince of Wales to travel to Rome for Pope John Paul II's funeral. The move disrupted the racing world with Aintree organisers deciding to delay the start of the world famous Grand National by 25 minutes to 4.10pm. And the postponement also caused a considerable headache for those trying to police the wedding in Windsor, with many officers having to work when they should have been on a day off.

Hundreds of officers from the Metropolitan Police and the Thames Valley force will be deployed in a huge joint operation headed by Commander Bob Broadhurst. There was yet more trouble for the Royal Family when it emerged that two intruders broke into the private area of Windsor Castle just days before the royal wedding. Scotland Yard refused to confirm reports that police officers would have to be paid overtime at twice their normal shift rate, possibly doubling the cost of the policing operation.

But Sally Hannon, chairwoman of the Thames Valley Police Authority, said the date change would be costly and she hoped Buckingham Palace would make some contribution to help cover the additional cost. "It's normal for police authorities, when they have large events like this, to ask for extra funds," she said. "We probably will ask the palace for a contribution because, though we don't know the actual amount yet, it is likely to be large." (Source: Daily Mail)

The wedding was postponed by 24 hours due to the Pope's funeral being held on the same day. Clarence House had earlier said the wedding plans would not be affected by events in Rome. Lloyd White, of Windsor and Maidenhead council, said, "We are happy to accommodate this alteration in the plans." Three other weddings booked for the Guildhall on the same day will not be disrupted, he added.

Next >>>