Contents

Talk:Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Royalty Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Berkshire Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 9, 2009, April 9, 2010, April 9, 2014, April 9, 2015, April 9, 2017, and April 9, 2020.

Royalty from European countries, no doubt, but not from Commonwealth countries. The Windsors are all we have apart from perhaps the nominal king of Malaysia, who is simply one of the sultans of the Malay states on a rotating basis. Or did the king of Swaziland attend? Or Tonga? They would seem rather few in number and lacking in subjects to merit a generalisation "royalty from the Commonwealth," surely. Masalai 03:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the fact that the Queen and Prince Phillip are on the "Wedding Guest List", although the article makes it clear that they didn't attend the civil ceremony. What am I missing? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't discuss the legal and procedural issues:

• Why she won't be called Queen?
• Will she still be Queen?
• Why not just go for a Morganatic Marriage?
• ... and so on.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I believe most of this is covered at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. This article is just about the wedding itself. --Azkar 01:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. But isn't that whole discussion more about the marriage than the person?

Why didn't they just marry in the Church of Scotland like Princess Anne?Carolynparrishfan 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles felt that as the heir to the throne he should marry in England. (Alphaboi867 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The Parliamentary statement, and the legal opinions, contain a lot of spurious arguments. The only question is whether the 1949 Act authorises civil wedding for member of the royal family. Section 79 of that Act (Repeals and Savings) says, “(5) Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family.” It takes a lot of contorted thinking to come to any conclusion other than that if the Act does not affect any law relating to royal weddings, it cannot be a law creating civil marriage for royals. This may well be a breach of Charles and Camilla’s right to marry, but section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act deals with “interpretation” of legislation and does not allow judges to ignore the clear provisions of an Act - section 4(2) explains that, where an Act is clearly in breach of human rights, judges can only make a declaration of incompatibility; that would not turn an invalid marriage into a valid one. The former Attorney General, Sir Nicholas Lyell expressed just these reservations. All text books and legal opinions up to Lord Falconer’s statement of 2005 say that a civil royal marriage would not be valid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethyoung1729 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant without reliable sources that support this argument. Do you have any, @Bethyoung1729:? P.S. try to make sure you don't stray into WP:OR, which several other editors to this page have. SSSB (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the text of the relevant statute which anyone can check - what better reference can one have on the law? But if that is insufficient, consider paragraph 4.2 on page 11 of the House of Commons note on this subject https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03417/SN03417.pdf

which confirms what I said about other people’s interpretation of the law. The fact that the marriage is invalid is surely relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethyoung1729 (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretaions of the law are only suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia if a reliable source makes that interpretaion. An interpretation of the law that you make is original research of the kind not permitted on wikipedia. Your above paragrapgh is an intepretation of the law, that's why I asked for a reliable source. The link you provided is sufficent, please feel free to sumarise that and make an Wikipedia:Edit requests (as I notice you do not have the user rights to edit the page, which was protected due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry). SSSB (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isthis image of the marriage certificate of interest?

James F. (talk) 01:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intersting, Charles didn't use any surname and Camilla signed her name with Parker Bowles. Wallis Simpson had to resume her maiden name briefly. Any particular reason why it asks for their fathers' names and occupations but not their mothers? (Alphaboi867 03:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Sexism - women didn't have jobs when these forms were designed. Mother's occupations never used to be on birth certificates, either. Am amused by the idea that "Prince of the United Kingdom" is a "rank or profession" though. I guess "unemployed" would have been more appropriate. Morwen - Talk 07:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. As for surnames, well, he's royalty; they don't need no steenkin' surnames! Or seriously, what is written there is his full legal name. This just highlights the inappropriate nature "Name and Surname" column and other such things that are vestiges of a system that works to keep people "in their place".

As for his job, well, for better or for worse, that is written there is exactly what he does. If we think that for a person to be just that is inappropriate, it is even more reason to show exactly what the current situation is, so people can see clearly what we have.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC

The Prince of Wales with the style of Royal highness IS a profession! He represents our country as an ambassador to the Queen and undertakes various constitutional engagements as a result. This is reflected in the way that Diana, Princess of Wales seized to undertake Royal duties after her divorce from Prince Charles and all revenue given to her from the civil list were withdrawn as a result. Unfortunately, some inbred and those with lack of intelligence do not recognize this and all because of their dislike for an individual. I happen to work as an accountant and the fact that somebody out there may not like me, makes me no less an accountant.

I know I have to 'be bold' in updating pages, but since I'm not 200% sure, I'll just ask here:

It should be 'Rowan Atkinson' instead of 'Akinson', right?

If you can confirm that it was indeed the Mr.Bean/Blackadder actor who was there, please correct it... Thanks! Michaël 00:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I saw Rowan Atkinson in that church. I also remember that Russian woman who sang a tune like the one in the "Hunt for the Red October". The daughters of the Duke of York said something to each-other. Maybe they were trying to find handsome men that they were not related to? The next thing on TV was the Royal Ascot. One would think that was the real topic that everyone (including these two girls) were thinking of. To make the wedding seem interesting, yes he was.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of the wedding, Camilla replaced HRH The Countess of Wessex as the highest-ranked female member of the Royal Family after Queen Elizabeth II" I thought it would be Princess Beatrice or Princess Anne, however you want to rank. --Kvasir 02:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because even if camilla become at least a princess consort it still a higher rank being the spouse of a heir and future king — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:C001:8713:491D:9A57:90D9:F453 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a comma after the word Wales? Shouldn't the title of the article be Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles?Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, Prince of Wales should be read and considered to be one self-contained unit. Seven Letters 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case with Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer. It also contradicts what is said in WP:COPYEDIT, Common edits, bullet point 7. 95.209.28.198 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna is quite right. I've moved the page accordingly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but didn't Greece abolish their monarchy in 1973? GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well consider how much of a fuck up that was for greece yes but it could be restore later on it a tradition for greece lol but yea that dont mean you cant invite family plus the greek goverment are always piss of it funny call him the king the greeks goverment is piss (2601:40:C001:8713:491D:9A57:90D9:F453 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)). and it was 1074 the 19 73 wasnt conisder legal (2601:40:C001:8713:491D:9A57:90D9:F453 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I have deleted references to the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII; the relevance is questionable due to the fact that a church remarriage was impossible in 1936 but became possible in 2002; also the significant groundswell of negative public opinion against the marriage experienced in 1936 was largely absent in 2005 Clivemacd (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Related discussion is taking place at Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton#Requested move 19 June 2018. —capmo (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert, Duke of York, and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section headed “Questioning a civil royal wedding”, insert, after the paragraph ending “beyond doubt”, and before the paragraph beginning “eleven objections”, the following paragraph:

House of Commons Library Standard note SN/PC/03417, “Royal Marriages - Constitutional Issues” paragraph 4.2 describes Lord Falconer’s arguments as “breezy” and details widespread criticism: the former Attorney General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) and the then Shadow Attorney General (Dominic Grieve) were unconvinced by Lord Falconer’s arguments and called for legislation; Lord Falconer’s senior officials admitted that Lord Falconer’s opinion might not hold up in court; and David Pannick QC (now Baron Pannick) gave legal arguments refuting Lord Falconer’s claims. Robert Blackburn QC, Professor of Constitutional law at Kings College, says that Lord Falconer’s opinion flew in the face of any conventional reading of the statute book, and flew in the face of standard legal text books.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03417/SN03417.pdf Bethyoung1729 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This is a prime example of a WP:PRIMARY source. Unless this House of Commons debate was reported in secondary sources such as newspapers, or if there are articles about the topic in academic publication, it doesn't go in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All House of Commons debates are fully reported in the Official Report (Hansard). Please explain why you consider this less reliable than newspaper reports, often penned by the "Parliamentary sketchwriter" whose job is to satirise the proceedings. Bethyoung1729's source is not a primary source because it links to articles about the topic in academic publication:

• Robert Blackburn's book King and Country
• Papers by Stephen Cretney (note that the Registrar General's powers are limited to authorising the issue of a superintendent registrar's certificate - the question of whether an alleged marriage is valid is a matter for the court)
• The 1956 advice to the Lord Chancellor
• The 1964 advice by the Home Office

@Bethyoung1729: you are free to insert your proposed text as the protection has expired. 89.240.113.133 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was no extra bank holiday for this wedding but was the possibility ever mentioned? --Jameboy (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]