http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084188/Secret-documents-cast-doubt-legality-Charless-wedding.html
All of this was discussed at the time of the Prince of Wales' wedding.
The Prince of Wales' civil marriage with Camilla Parker-Bowles is a legal marriage. The Church of England recognizes civil marriages as legal marriages. This marriage was blessed by the Church of England, although the couple were not married, according to the rites of the Church of England.
The Church of England recognizes civil divorce. Remarriage of divorced persons is permitted in the Church of England, although a local priest might choose not to perform a marriage of divorced persons. If this happens, the couple cannot seek out another minister to marry them because of the Church of England requirements regarding where a bride and groom may marry. In most cases, the bride and groom must marry in either's parish church
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/mcad/index.html
It was entirely possible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to marry Charles and Camilla, but it would have been a controversial decision. The Church of England has several policies regarding the marriage of divorced persons. But many Anglican priests do allow divorced persons with living spouses to remarry in their parish church. A growing number of divorced persons with living former spouses marry in the Anglican church each year, due to the changes in the official policy.
The Princess Royal's second marriage took place according to the rites of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), which has a more liberal view regarding the marriage of divorced persons. The Church of Scotland is not a part of the Anglican Communion, although the Church is in full communion with the Church of England. (This means members may take the Sacrament in each other's churches.)
The Scottish Episcopal Church is a member of the Anglican communion.
This marriage did not affect her membership in the Church of England, which recognizes other Christian marriages. Anne did not need permission from the Church of England to marry in the Church of Scotland, although her mother may have mentioned it to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Princess Royal remains a fully communicant member of the Church of England.
The Church of England recognizes and accepts her second marriage. Why? Easy. The marriage is a legal wedding. The Church of England cannot disavow a marriage that is recognized in law,
Nor did Anne need a dispensation to marry in a church other than her own. She and Tim could have flown to the US for a wedding in an Episcopal or a Lutheran church, and the marriage would have been recognized and accepted by the Church of England.
When the British royal family are in Scotland, they worship at Crathie Church, which is Church of Scotland.
The Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, and the Princess Royal are members of the Church of England, which does not deny communion to divorced or remarried members. As I stated above, the Church of England recognizes marriages performed in other Christian churches. Thus, a divorced Roman Catholic who joined the Anglican church is subject to the same policy on remarriage. The first marriage, even if it took place in the Catholic church, is a legal wedding. Joining the Church of England is not a way to wipe away previous marriages and divorces.
10 comments:
All of what you say is true, but it seems to me not to address the central issue. No one denies that the Church of England could have provided Charles and Camilla with a wedding of undoubted legality: however, the Church of England chose not to. Instead, Charles and Camilla were married in a civil ceremony, and the laws authorizing civil ceremonies contain specific clauses stating that they do not authorize them for the royal family. So instead of having a clearly legal marriage, Charles and Camilla settled for a wedding of dubious efficacy, justified by hand-waving and reference to European human rights laws rather than to actual law.
I don't think it a silly article at all; it merely points out that Charles and Camilla are considered married because of general agreement that we needn't worry too much about what the law actually says.
This was discussed by the broadsheets at the time of the wedding. The more recent laws on civil marriages, which superceded earlier laws, made no mention of the Royal Family.
The Church of Scotland is not the same as the Presbyterian church; it is how the Anglican/Church of England is known in Scotland. Similar to the Episcopalian church being how the Anglican/Church of England is known in USA.
The problem, however, is that there is no later law which actually authorizes members of the royal family to have civil marriages. This is the very reason that, as you pointed out, Anne had to go to Scotland for a religious wedding: it was universally agreed at the time that a civil wedding was impossible. The only difference between her wedding and Charles' is that Charles just decided that he didn't actually have to comply with the law, and this was justified by a vague reference to European human rights legislation that had been recently passed.
Now, I agree that a news article's declaration that "the Emperor has no clothes" may seem silly, especially when everyone else is pretending he's fully clad. But in this case, the Prince is actually naked.
Church of Scotland is most certainly Presbyterian. It is not Anglican.
http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orghistory.htm
The Scottish Episcopal church is a member of the Anglican communion.
http://www.scotland.anglican.org/
Anne did not have to go to Scotland to get married. She chose to get married at Crathie church. She could have found an Anglican clergy to perform the marriage, but that would have been controversial. There are other protestant churches in London - she could have gotten married at the lovely St. Ann's Luitheran church near st Paul's -- a Wren church.
Anne also could have gone to Scotland and had a civil marriage (which is what Lord St. Andrews did). Anne had a lot of options but she chose to get married at Crathie church, which is her home church in Scotland.
Right, she could have had a religious wedding anywhere in England - if she could have found an Anglican clergyman willing to do it.
But it was universally understood at the time of her remarriage that she was not eligible to have a civil ceremony in a registry office in England. The new rationalization in favor of the legality of a civil marriage for the future king certainly originated well after Prince Charles's divorce, when the “Briefing for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s Appearance on Any Questions: The Royal Divorce” stated that "Members of the Royal Family are excepted from the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949, and their marriages in England and Wales must therefore be performed by Anglican clergy under either a Special or a Common Licence." This understanding hadn't changed when Anne remarried.
That Lord Falconer's advice on the legality of Charles & Camilla's marriage is a radical departure from the former understanding of the law is something he himself acknowledges: "We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that these were overcautious."
The only type of marriage being questioned is the civil marriage of a member of the Royal Family in England - that is, the type chosen by Charles and Camilla. I don't dispute that there were other, more clearly legal, options, and I think Charles would have done well to have chosen one of them - like his sister had the wisdom to do!
Anne chose to get married at Crathie church in 1992, this was before the CoE modified its rulings on remarriage in the church and also before the passing of the Human Rights Legislation in 1998. Since Charles and Camilla, the Duke of Kent's youngest son Lord Nicholas Windsor also married civilly in England, 2 weeks before his religious marriage in The Vatican. He did so to make his marriage legal in the UK. Lord Falconer at the time was the highest legal opinion in the UK, his judgement based on Law ( Marriage Act 1949 and Human Rights Act 1998) civil marriages of royals are legal.
Yes, I know. If Lord Nicholas has chosen to marry in a RC church in the UK, he would not have needed the civil ceremony, however.
True Lord Nicholas wouldn't had needed a civil ceremony but as he did marry outside the UK and needed one, he had one. And that civil ceremony made his marriage legal in the UK.
Another point I remembered later, the CoE changed their rulings on divorcees marrying in religious ceremonies in 2002. From the Church website it states that individual ministers can decide whether or not to marry divorcees, the preferred option is for divorcees to have a civil marriage and a church blessing. Charles as future head of CoE followed their recommendations.
(My posts are more in reply to starling's posts on the issue. I don't disagree with what you've written Marlene)
Post a Comment