HRH The Duchess of Cornwall |
The Marriage Act of 1836 introduced civil weddings into British law for the first time. It also explicitly excluded the Royal Family from its intended benefits. The 1949 Marriage Act stated: Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family.
To state the obvious, the Act of 1949 does not replace or annul the exemption stated in the Act of 1836. Royals are therefore excluded from the benefits of civil weddings. It follows that the civil wedding of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles is null and void. This should end the discussion, one would think.
But it is the Royal Family, and the British press become all mealy mouthed where they are concerned. So instead of just stating the obvious, they now take an oblique approach roundabout the government to secure papers that should be made public on the issue. It’s the typically British way of saying, we all know that something went wrong, but could please somebody find a wormhole through which it becomes suddenly legal.
As the statements of the laws are quite clear, it surprises no end how Lord Falconer speaking for Blair could have given the go ahead in the face of legal facts. Lord Falconer was cited as having used human rights considerations. That, dear Sir, is plainly ridiculous in a country where a family is held state prisoner and prevented from using freedom of speech.
If we want to grant the Royal Family human rights, then let the Queen speak her mind openly. I think the levellers directed at some government officials past and present would be quite refreshing.
On the other hand, who really cares? If the two want to be married, fine. If the rest of us pretend that we think it is legal, it is legal. That’s how the law has always worked, by coding down common agreements after the fact.
Further reading
William and Kate: Title History
How Royal Succession Works in the United Kingdom
Princes: Not All That Glitters
No comments:
Post a Comment