On 10 February 2005, it was announced that
Camilla Parker Bowles and
Charles, Prince of Wales, would marry on 8 April 2005, at
Windsor Castle with a
civil ceremony followed by religious prayer. A portrait of the couple posed at the entryway to
Birkhall was later released to mark their engagement. The
Privy Council met on 2 March 2005 to give effect to the Queen's consent to the marriage, in conformance with the provisions of the
Royal Marriages Act 1772. The government indicated that the marriage was not
morganatic. The
Archbishop of Canterbury,
Rowan Williams, issued a statement which read: "These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Prime Minister
Tony Blair,
Leader of the Opposition Michael Howard, Leader of the
Liberal Democrats Charles Kennedy,
Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain, and the Prime Ministers of the other
Commonwealth realms added their congratulations. The Duchess' engagement ring was a Windsor family heirloom that had belonged to
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. It has a 1920s
platinum setting and it is composed of a square-cut central diamond flanked by six diamond baguettes. Although Camilla Parker Bowles had
divorced her first husband in 1995, the marriage of a divorced person whose ex-spouse is still living has been possible in the Church of England, at the discretion of the member of clergy conducting the ceremony, since 2002. When
Anne, Princess Royal married
Timothy Laurence after having divorced
Mark Phillips, she did so in the
Church of Scotland. The remarriage of divorcés is not controversial in the Church of Scotland, which does not view marriage as a
sacrament, and the sovereign has no constitutional role in the governance of the Church. Charles and Camilla did not elect this course of action.
Questioning a royal civil wedding Charles is the first member of the royal family to marry in a
civil ceremony in England.
Stephen Cretney, a Fellow at
All Souls College, Oxford, questioned whether Charles and Camilla could marry in a civil ceremony, as the
Royal Family was specifically excluded from the law which instituted civil marriages in England (
Marriage Act 1836). On 14 February, the
BBC's
Panorama uncovered documents of official legislative research advice dating from 1956 and 1964, which stated that it was not lawful for members of the royal family to marry in a civil ceremony in
England and Wales, though it would be lawful in Scotland. These documents' statements were dismissed in a statement published by
Clarence House on the advice of four unnamed legal experts. It took the view that the 1836 Act had been repealed by the
Marriage Act 1949. In the newspaper
The Times on 22 February 2005, the lawyer
David Pannick wrote: "It is difficult to understand how the happy couple can marry in a civil marriage ceremony, as they intend, without causing a right royal nullity ... Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act still prevents a civil ceremony." The first lawyer to put his name to a contrary view was
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, who made the following statement in the House of Lords on 24 February: The Government are 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. Civil marriages were introduced in England, by the Marriage Act 1836. Section 45 said that the Act "... shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family". But the provisions on civil marriage in the 1836 Act were repealed by the Marriage Act 1949. All remaining parts of the 1836 Act, including Section 45, were repealed by the Registration Service Act 1953. No part of the 1836 Act therefore remains on the statute book. ... We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that these were overcautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this Statement is correct. 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 (Article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (Article 14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt. This argument was rejected by the law professor
Rebecca Probert. She noted that the 1949 Act nowhere refers to "ancient procedures" but to the preservation of existing "law". As the heading indicates, Section 79 is a "saving". The purpose of a "saving" is to make specific provision for the continuance of an old law which would otherwise be abrogated by a new law. The government raised the issue of the Human Rights Act, noting that under this the 1949 Act had to be interpreted wherever possible to uphold the right to marry without discrimination. The key words are "wherever possible" – the Human Rights Act specifically states that where a statute makes something illegal the only way to make it legal is to amend or repeal the statute. For example, were the Sovereign to deny a member permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, an application to the Court for a declaration that the marriage must be permitted to go ahead under human rights legislation would fail. Eleven objections were received by the Cirencester and Chippenham register offices but were all rejected by the
Registrar General (and
National Statistician)
Len Cook, who determined that a civil marriage would in fact be valid.
Change of the wedding venue and date On 17 February,
Clarence House announced the marriage's change of venue from Windsor Castle to the
Windsor Guildhall, immediately outside the walls of the castle. This substitution came about when it was discovered that the legal requirements for licensing the royal castle for civil weddings would require opening it up to other prospective couples for at least three years. On 22 February, Buckingham Palace announced that the Queen would not attend the wedding ceremony, but would attend the church blessing and host the reception afterwards. The reason stated by the palace was the couple wanted to keep the occasion low key. On 4 April, it was announced that the wedding would be postponed 24 hours until 9 April, so that the Prince of Wales could attend the
funeral of Pope John Paul II as the representative of the Queen. The postponement also allowed some of the dignitaries who were invited to the funeral to attend the wedding. In keeping with tradition, the Prince of Wales spent the night apart from his bride-to-be at
Highgrove House, his country home in
Gloucestershire, with his sons Princes
William and
Harry, while Camilla remained at Clarence House. ==Wedding and Service of Prayer and Dedication==