ROYAL WEDDING FARCE

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
 

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And though the law on civil marriages was repealed in 1949 by another Marriage Act, this stated that "nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family."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." (Source: The Independent)

Eleven legal objections to the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles have been dismissed by Registrar General Len Cook. A marriage certificate will now be granted for the ceremony at the Guildhall in Windsor. Critics have said it is illegal for the prince to marry in a register office, although the government believes it is legal because of the Human Rights Act. In a statement, Mr Cook said the objections had stated that members of the Royal Family were a special category with special rules. He said those who had lodged caveats had said the Marriage Act 1949 states that "nothing in this act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family".

This led them to argue that the provisions of the 1949 act governing civil marriages do not apply to marriages of members of the Royal Family. He said a reading of the 1949 act which stopped the prince and Mrs Parker Bowles from marrying would breach their civil liberties under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. The "natural" reading of the 1949 act was that it preserved certain regulations and customs relating to Royal marriages, but that it did not exclude members from marrying in civil ceremonies as outlined by the act.

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