![]() |
Question about Royal Wedding
I had a thought this afternoon and was wondering if anyone knew the answer.
At the Registry Office there is a part of the ceremony where they ask if anyone knows of any reason why these two can't marry. Now my understanding is that there must be the opportunity for anyone to walk in and object. How does this fit with the security etc? i.e. couldn't Osama just walk right in there? If he was refused access then surely the marriage can't be legal? Just curious really. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Not sure but their forthcoming wedding would've had to be on public display as with normal weddings so maybe if anyone had a good enough reason they'd have to put it in writing, cant think of any other way.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Doesn't it say 'does anybody here present have any objections' or words to that effect? So, if the people who want to object aren't there they can't object.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I think I read in one of the papers that they had set up a separate desk at a nearby council office to deal with any objections, as the security and seating arrangements at the venue wouldn't allow for anyone to object whilst the ceremony was in progress.
Apparently there was one priest at the end of it all saying that the marriage wasn't legal and it was the whole "Mrs Simpson" thing all over again. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
That's a really good point Ian because in my understanding (with my "authorised person" hat on) the venue has to be open to the public so that anyone who wishes to witness the ceremony may do so and may object. There is specific wording which has to be a part of the ceremony in order for it to be legal. I didn't see the wedding itself but I'm presuming they did the "I call upon these persons here present" bit.
I actually thought the church blessing afterwards was a bit of a hypocritical farce because they practically used the wording of a wedding ceremony even down to the "I do" bit and yet the church wouldn't actually marry them. :idunno: |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Have a look here, it maybe helpful.
http://www.webwedding.co.uk/articles...es/content.htm ******, sorry I didn't think the other post had gone. :o :) |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Much to my surprise I watched todays wedding, well inbetween playing with Ellie, though I dont remember seeing the vows, I thought it was really nice, I've never been a Royalist but Camilla is growing on me a bit now, a love that has spanned 30 years must count for something?
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Quote:
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I'm definitely not a royalist and I think what has transpired with this pair over the last 25 years is despicable, a "brood-mare" marriage between him and Diana and the typical royal attitude of having a wife for the heirs and a mistress for the frolics. HOWEVER, I almost admire Charles for standing up to his mother, at long last, and making an honest woman of the (now) future queen.
I am cynical enough to believe that he felt marriage was the only option, when his future job-description includes the title "Defender of the Faith", because the world and its wife knew all about Camilla but I think HMQ would have preferred Camilla to be kept on the periphery. What mother doesn't go to her son's wedding unless she disapproves of the occasion? Anyway, for all that, Camilla looked lovely today - who wouldn't with the ££££s at her disposal? - and I have the feeling they will have a very happy and successful marriage. It's a very different world, now, from the time when the Duke of Windsor married Wallis Simpson and the Establishment (in particular the Queen Mother) refused to accept her. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I haven't seen any of it yet, I have heard that it was a nice wedding and that they look happy. Good for them. We all make mistakes, right or wrong they are married now and hopefully people will leave well alone.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I am bit confused about all the objections. Wasn't the Church of England set up because Henry VIII was refused a divorce by the Pope? So the founder of the Church of England divorced his wife and then went on to marry five more!!!! Bit hypocritical to start preaching about the sanctity of marriage. If it wasn't for someone wanting to divorce his wife and marry his mistress you'd all still be Catholics.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
And another thing. Why has everyone been making a fuss about Charles, didn't Anne get remarried not that long ago - don't remember anyone fussing about her marrying her bit on the side.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of Charles and Camilla being married, I just can't understand everyone else's objections. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Quote:
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Sorry, I know it's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
No it's not really. We are all happy to throw stones purpleLass, but when their thrown at us we start calling foul, are they really any different from us. I don’t think so. I hope they find there happiness they are just as entitled as we are.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
It does annoy me how people keep going on about Charles and Camilla and how opposed they are to the whole thing. Charles and Diana got divorced before she died. I know that Charles having an affair whilst being married to Diana wasn't good but then again she wasn't whiter than white either. I'm pretty sure that if she wasn't dead now people wouldn't be making quite the fuss that they are. Although ironically if he'd still been married when she died there wouldn't be that much fuss as it's ok for a widower to remarry.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Not a Royalist but........
like anybody else l wish them well. If it hadn't been such an antiquated system they would have been able to marry years ago, and thus not hurt the other people that got entangled. Garinda's fashion comment's. She got it spot on with the lavender grey dress coat and hat she wore to the blessing at St. George's Chapel. Scrubs up well. It's amazing what our money can do! :) |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Quote:
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Quote:
l think it was by Philip Treacy. l 'm more cutting edge and would have used a tam-pax theme for her headwear! [Joking:)] |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I loved that spikey thing too, it was gold plated feathers so I'm told.
Yes it is barmy that the C of E came into existence because Henry VIII wanted a divorce (or anullment) and the Pope wouldn't permit it. I don't think as much fuss was made about Princess Anne's divorce and remarriage because she remarried on Scotland (where the church doesn't object to the situation) and because she isn't the heir to the throne and so there isn't all this rigmarole and red tape nonsense surrounding her. I think technically because Charles's ex-wife is deceased he could be regarded as a widower by a church which doesn't recognise divorce but Camilla's husband is still alive so itheir marriage would still involve a divorced (ie in the church's eyes still technically married before God) person. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
1 Attachment(s)
Personally, I am all for the wedding and good luck to them both. There are a couple of things that niggle me though, the first being how the papers put Diana on a pedastal by saying how beautiful she was and compare her to todays "super models." which frankly is stretching fantasy a little far..........but then to compare Diana with Camilla and in doing so, criticise Camilla because she isn't so attractive is plain sick.
She is not the most glamorous woman in the world but for her age (is it 50 something?) is doing well! Charles is not a great catch if looks are the criteria but I feel that they love each other which is the most important thing. After saying that, I have had this picture on my PC for a couple of months and it always makes me chuckle so I will add it to this post to get it out of my system......:D |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
For the people against Charles and Camilla getting hitched - pick up a copy of Take a Break/Thats Life or somesuch tat. Far worse goes on in those pages.;)
Who cares at the end of the day who he is married to? I wish them all the best. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Quote:
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I watched the wedding and really enjoyed it, they are more suited to each other than Charles and Diana were.It must be true love, who else would put up with all the bad press if it wasn't.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
It wouldn't matter a d**n if he wasn't heir to the throne. This is an over-privileged, spoilt, brat, who had the chance to marry Camilla Shand when they were both single, but wouldn't make up his mind. Yes, it is a great love affair .... after all, it broke up two marriages and split two families. Now he wants it all. He should have been honest about it - his great uncle had to give up the throne because he married a divorcee. If he wanted to marry her that much, shouldn't he have done the same?
Not just a personal opinion, it could do tremendous damage to the monarchy - and everyone seems to forget the fact that she is supposed to be a Catholic - James Ogilvy had to give up his right to the throne (admittedly he was about 33 away from it!) when he married a Catholic. The Queen has a tremedous sense of duty. Charles just seems to have a tremedous sense of privilege. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
New studies show that 64% of all marriages in the UK end in divorce,
Catholics 62% Anglicans 72% Non Denominations 68% 91% Remarry Catholics 89% Anglicans 92% Non Denominations 94% So what are they doing any different to the rest of the UK, its not like he's going to have any power when he becomes King. The days of off with his head finished a few years back. So who is really opposed to the marriage, from a distance it seems mainly the Sun, Mirror, Times,etc but of course the British people arn't influenced by the newspaper or are they? ;) |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Actually, Bazf, the Law Society's Gazette put it at 53%, not 64%, and I would hazard a guess that they are more likely to have the correct statistics.
It isn't really a question of being opposed to the marriage - who cares what two middle-aged people do? It is a question of the constitution, unwritten largely, but the bits that are written are firmly against such a marriage and clearly declare that it is unconstitutional. The Royal Marriages Act specifically states this. So where does that leave us? - a future King (perhaps), a future Head of the Church of England (and despite the fact that you state that 92% of Anglicans remarry, they most definitely do not do so in the Church of England) who has put personal choice before the constitution. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
The United Kingdom has no written constitution. Therefore in contrast with most other countries it is not possible to point to a text and say "this is our constitution", nor is there any doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution over other legislation, nor any constitutional court, nor any doctrine of the separation of powers So constitutionaly no opposition.The 1772 Royal Marriage Act Created in a time when the British government was more concerned with protecting the monarchy from so-called Papists, the Act of Settlement is today something of a white elephant in our more culturally diverse and tolerant day and age. The Lord Chancellor Statement about the Royal Marriage Act The Marriage Act 1949 re-enacted and re-stated the law on marriage in England and Wales. The Act covered both marriage by Church of England rite, and civil marriage. It did not repeat the language of section 45 of the 1836 Act. Instead, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act says that: "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family." The change of wording is important, and the significance is not undermined by the fact that the 1949 Act is described as a consolidation Act. The interpretation of any Act of Parliament, even when it consolidates previous legislation, must be based on the words used in the Act itself, not different words used in the previous legislation. In our view, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act preserves ancient procedures applying to Royal marriages, for example the availability of customary forms of marriage and registration. It also preserves the effect of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which requires the Sovereign's consent for certain marriages. But it does not have the effect of excluding Royal marriages from the scope of Part III, which provides for civil ceremonies. As the heading to section 79 indicates ("Repeals and savings") it is a saving, not an exclusion. 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. 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. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
"This is an over-privileged, spoilt, brat, who had the chance to marry Camilla Shand when they were both single, but wouldn't make up his mind. "
He hesitated because Camilla had a "past". Unlike his great-uncle, another spoilt brat who didn't want the responsibility that privilege entails and said, figuratively, "Sod that", Charles didn't dare to defy his family or risk his succession. She, miffed, went straight off and married Andrew P B who had been chasing her for some time, but always maintained her arrangement with Charles. Her attitude to the situation, and his, is summed up in her well-known opening gambit to him when they first met, "Your great great grandfather and my great grandmother were lovers. How about it?" Throughout history, as both of them well knew, it had been customary for royal males to be serial philanderers and royal females to accept the situation. Camilla was complicit in Charles' wooing of Diana Spencer. Both thought that here was a young woman who would serve her purpose admirably and settle down to the life of compliant consort and mother of the future sovereign. Unfortunately for them, Diana would neither accept nor comply and the plan to carry on their affair away from public eyes was shattered. Had Camilla, before her first marriage, been "unsullied" the situation might have been different. It is possible, however, that the role of Royal Mistress was a more inviting prospect to her than Royal Bride; most of the privilege with none of the responsibility. Diana's resistance to the plot meant that the affair was thrust into the spotlight. It was impossible to carry on as before, the Press knew the "secret" and made the most of it. In the last 8 years Charles' staff have carried out a magnificent public relations excercise and have gradually persuaded a largely antipathetic Public into acceptance of Camilla as his one, great love, sweeping the intervening events neatly under the priceless Persian rug. You are quite right, Pendy, if this were a common citizen it would not matter a damn. That he is the highly privileged heir to the throne, with all the responsibilities this should entail, alters the case. I am sure the marriage will work, this pair have acheived what they dared not, or cared not, to do 30 years ago. The Great British Public will accept the future Queen Camilla wholeheartedly. The Royal manipulation machinery has already seen to that. |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I did like the formal photographs that were published in most of the newspapers. They all suggested one happy family. I think Prince Charles' two boys, Tom and William, looked especially happy.
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
prince charles sons are called, william & HARRY mr tealeaf sir /
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Quote:
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Right first time, Tealeaf! - especially when you said PC's TWO sons!
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
Are you going to plead Freudian slip Tealeaf? :D
|
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
By the way, if anyone notices a loud buzzing sound coming from the direction of Windsor, don't worry.
It's just Queen Alexandra spinning in her grave! |
Re: Question about Royal Wedding
I genuinely don't give a damn about the whole thing but have to agree with Garinda that she scrubbed up well and I preferred her outfit to many of those "young things" around her!
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:02. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com