![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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)
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)
Doesn't discuss the legal and procedural issues:
— iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:57, Apr 11, 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)
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)
Is this image of the marriage certificate of interest?
James F. (talk) 01:11, 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)
"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)
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)
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)
I might be wrong, but didn't Greece abolish their monarchy in 1973? GoodDay ( talk) 04:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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)
@ 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)
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)