ROYAL WEDDING FARCE

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
 

Prince Charles is to rely on European human rights law to ensure the legality of his marriage. His intention to have a civil wedding is legally "beyond doubt" because of new human rights rules, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said in an emergency statement. His view is actually a humiliation for the prince, who until now has been a vehement critic of the Government's Human Rights Act. In 2001 he told ministers he regarded it as a threat to "sane, civilised and ordered existence". He wrote to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine to make clear his views in a letter which was later leaked to the Daily Mail. In it, he wrote:

"I worry, despite your reassurances to me, that the longer-term effect of the Human Rights Act will be to provide opportunities which, whatever the sanity and reasonableness of our own judges, will only encourage people to take up causes which will make the pursuit of a sane, civilised and ordered existence ever more difficult. The Act was "only about the right of individuals (I am unable to find a list of social responsibilities attached to it) and this betrays a fundamental distortion in social and legal thinking. This is made worse because the litigious society is a vicious circle; the more people become litigious, the more government legislates to proscribe those occasions which might lead to a third party having just cause to enter into litigation. (I am) struck to the degree to which our lives are becoming ruled by a truly absurd degree of politically correct interference."

But it was this very Act which Lord Falconer cited in his attempt to quash speculation that Charles's wedding will be null and void because British marriage law forbids members of the Royal Family from marrying outside the Church of England. The 1998 Human Rights Act, which takes its lead from European human rights laws, is highly controversial. Prominent lawyers, including the Prime Minister's wife Cherie Blair, believe the public see human rights law as a boon for "undeserving characters" such as terrorists and murderers, failed asylum seekers and travellers trying to circumvent planning rules. Lord Falconer's statement came after Charles demanded "clarification" of the law amid growing alarm over the legal status of his wedding.

Authoritative critics have said the 1836 Marriage Act, which first allowed civil weddings, bars them to members of the Royal Family, and that no law passed since has altered that. The Lord Chancellor said, "The Government is satisfied that it is lawful for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles, like anyone else, to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the Marriage Act 1949." Lord Falconer said the 1836 Act had been superseded by the 1949 law, and that Section 45 of the 1836 Act, the clause which bars civil marriage to royals, had been repealed in 1953. The 1949 law states that "nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family".

But Lord Falconer said this does not exclude the royals from civil marriage. He rejected the advice accepted by governments in the past that royals could not marry in register offices. In 1955 ministers said Princess Margaret could not marry divorcee Peter Townsend in a civil ceremony. Lord Falconer said, "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." Human rights law, he said, was the clincher. "The Human Rights Act has required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination. This puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt." (Source: Daily Mail)

The marriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles is open to challenge in the courts because of the Lord Chancellor’s blundering, according to an expert on family law. Stephen Cretney, fears that the marriage’s validity could be challenged by people trying to prevent the Duchess of Cornwall becoming Queen or inheriting from the Royal Family. He accuses Lord Falconer of Thoroton of overturning advice that, by law, the Royal Family may not have civil weddings in England.

The Oxford-based academic suggests that ministers tried to cover up that the Duchess would become Queen, by waiting six weeks from the wedding announcement to confirm her future status. Errors began with the announcement that the wedding would be at Windsor Castle. The castle had not been approved as premises for weddings and the venue was schanged to a register office.

Dr Cretney said, “If ‘someone had blundered’ on an issue which could have been clarified by brief reference to a textbook, how truly ‘expert’ were those on whose advice the authorities relied?” Since 1836, the Royal Family has been excluded from marriage Acts allowing civil weddings in England, and, over the years, the law officers have confirmed this ban. But Lord Falconer rejected previous advice as “overcautious” and claimed that the Human Rights Act put the issue “beyond doubt”.

Although the legal validity of the marriage was “now most unlikely to be successfully challenged”, doubt remained. Were the marriage not valid, the Duchess could not become Queen and might lose entitlement to property settlements. Clarence House had said that the Duchess would be called Princess Consort when Charles became King. Yet Edward VIII had had to abdicate when Stanley Baldwin told the Commons that the King’s wife necessarily becomes Queen “by the fact of her marriage to the King”.

The “long delay” in a government statement being made on the Duchess’s future status “and the lack of conviction and clarity apparent when a statement was finally made, almost suggested that there had been something to hide or at least not to make overly clear”. Mr Baldwin and, later, John Major, had made statements in the Commons when such issues arose. “Mr Blair confined any statement of the Government’s views to a message of congratulations and a discussion on Richard & Judy,” Dr Cretney said.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs said, “The Lord Chancellor’s statement did not overturn any judicial decisions. The Human Rights Act requires all statutes to be reinterpreted, if possible, to respect the right to marry. The wife of a king is queen, but does not have to use the title.” Clarence House said that four legal sources had “agreed that there was no bar to members of the Royal Family marrying in a civil ceremony”. (Source: Times Online, Sep/06)

<<< Prev