| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
 Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:06 pm Queen to miss Charles' wedding |
|
| BBC News wrote: | Queen to miss Charles' wedding
Prince Charles and Camilla
The wedding is due to take place on 8 April in Windsor Guildhall
The Queen will not attend the civil marriage ceremony of her son and his new bride, says Buckingham Palace.
The Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles are getting married on 8 April at the Guildhall in Windsor.
The palace said the Queen would attend the church blessing afterwards and was happy to host the reception.
Buckingham Palace said "this is not a snub" and added it was because "the prince and Mrs Parker Bowles wanted to keep the occasion low key".
"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," the spokeswoman said.
"She is very pleased to be giving the wedding reception at the Castle."
Security fears
Prince William and Prince Harry, along with Mrs Parker Bowles' children, Tom and Laura, are planning to attend the civil ceremony.
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
Dr David Starkey
Historian
The spokeswoman said: "The Queen's prime concern is that the civil ceremony should be as low key as possible, in line with the couple's wishes."
Asked if this was a royal snub, the spokeswoman replied: "The Queen is attending the service of dedication and paying for the reception - this is not a snub."
Historian Dr David Starkey said the Queen's decision was "unprecedented" in royal history.
"We are into unknown territories with this decision and one can only speculate on the reason why.
"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."
'Good decision'
Lord St John of Fawsley, a constitutional expert who knows Prince Charles, said the Queen had made a "good decision" not to attend the civil ceremony.
He said she had clearly shown her approval of the wedding but as Supreme Governor of the Church of England "does not want to go to a wedding at a register office".
Camilla's engagement ring had belonged to the Queen Mother
The Queen was a principled person, he said, adding: "One cannot live one's life in accordance with the way the media may react."
BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said the Queen had "concerns and anxieties" about the wedding.
"It's taking place in a register office - that certainly was starting to turn this into a bit of a farce," he said.
"It's just going from bad to worse... the Queen, in her heart, doesn't feel entirely at ease with this marriage."
Royal commentator James Whitaker said: "This will further split the country, with people saying 'does the Queen really believe in this marriage between her son and Camilla Parker Bowles the divorcee?' "
The ceremony was to have been held at Windsor Castle but was switched last week after a licensing blunder.
Apparently, royal aides failed to realise the licence required would have run for three years, meaning anyone could apply to marry there during that time.
Legal row
There have also been doubts over the legality of the prince's marriage.
On Monday, law experts said royals could not have English civil marriages and the prince and Mrs Parker Bowles would have to wed in Scotland.
But the lord chancellor insists the planned civil ceremony is legal.
The dispute centres on the interpretation of legislation dating from 1836 and 1949.
Under the 1836 Marriage Act, members of the Royal Family are explicitly barred from marrying in a civil ceremony.
The 1949 Marriage Act, which formalised civil marriages, superseded the 1836 Act but included a clause saying: "Nothing in this act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family."
Some legal experts argue that this wording means the 1949 act does not apply to the Royal Family. |
Huge debate at the moment in the UK.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
Huge debate between all the tabloids. I dont think most people care. The tabloids just print a load of rubbish every day 
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:38 am |
|
I was listening to a live debate on the radio and people on it did care. Loads of people couldn't get on as it was too busy. I wonder the reason why she isn't going. Pretty big thing I guess.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:23 pm |
|
My guess is it's mainly security issues. Those security guys always get scared when more than one heir to the throne is in the same place (which is why Prince Charles doesn't fly on the same plane as William and Harry) and since this is now going to be held in a public building, I guess it would make it very easy for a terrorist to target, possibly killing not only the monarch, but the next three in line to the throne. I can't remember who comes after Harry, but it would be a big thing if it happened.
Of course, I could have gotten it completely wrong and it's just the Queen doesn't wanna go 
|
|
|
Natira
The Cute One
Joined: 15 Jul 2001
Posts: 5407
Location: Wrapped around Bella's little finger!
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:35 pm |
|
Well, he's been with her how long now? To me it just seems like a celebration of something that's been going on for a long time now. It'll only be legal now.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:46 pm |
|
Im not from England so my knowledge of this is probably skewed. I assumed the Queen did not want to go because she disliked their union. Im prolly wrong though.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:54 pm |
|
There was an article in our local newspaper attempting to emphasize that this was not a 'snub', but rather the couple wants the event to remain low-key.
By definition, anything that the queen attends is not low-key anymore, but you still have to think for a moment . . . is anything that the heir to the throne attends low-key? If Charles is there, the queen might as well be there.
British monarchy . . . perhaps one of the oldest entertainment venues of Europe. 
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | My guess is it's mainly security issues. Those security guys always get scared when more than one heir to the throne is in the same place (which is why Prince Charles doesn't fly on the same plane as William and Harry) and since this is now going to be held in a public building, I guess it would make it very easy for a terrorist to target, possibly killing not only the monarch, but the next three in line to the throne. I can't remember who comes after Harry, but it would be a big thing if it happened.
Of course, I could have gotten it completely wrong and it's just the Queen doesn't wanna go |
It will probably be one of the main reasons. I was playing in a concert in front of Prince Andrew and before it they had police searching every seat and had sniffer dogs search the place. He's not even a direct heir to the throne.
Another thing that could have influenced her is that she is a christan and doesn't view this as right (Camila is diveroced). As she swore to be defender of the faith then she has to make a stand and put it above her family.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:57 am |
|
Last time I checked Charles was divorced too  He will also be the head of the Church of England if/when he becomes King, so I think really they should get married in a Church. But it's really up to them.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:09 pm |
|
Yes, but his wife has unfortunatly died. So it's different. Although when he was with Camillia before she died then it wasn't ok.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:21 pm |
|
So, if Mr Parker Bowles or whatever he's called died it would be different? I'm not sure it would. It would have been easier if Charles had just married Camilla in the first place, but you can't change history, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
