I've put this entry under the Politics header as I've got no intention of dedicating a whole category (not that it would use up much space) to the saga of Prince Charles' allegedly impending marriage. Anyway, they've just announced that Prince Charles is going to marry his lover, who has been on the scene since well before he married Lady Diana (who was never really Princess Diana, people just called her that) in an apparent fairy-tale wedding in 1982. Of course, it never was a fairy-tale wedding; they later admitted that the whole thing had been a sham from the beginning. Charlie's real love was Camilla, who had instead gone and married some other guy (Mr Parker-Bowles; her original name is Shand) and Charlie married Di. They had two sons, before all the scandal hit, they got divorced, Di ran off with Dodi (really Emad bin Muhammad al-Fayed) and then both of them got killed in a car crash in Paris. Charles' relationship with Camilla has since grown to be much more than an affair.
Yesterday (Sunday) the BBC cancelled its normal Panorama programme which was meant to be about bullying. Instead, they put on a feature about the legal obstacles to Charles marrying Camilla. The problem is that Christianity bans the remarriage of divorcees. The prohibition comes directly from the Bible, in which Jesus (peace be upon him) is said to teach directly that "any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman" (Matthew 19:11). The problem here is that polygamy was also known about in the Old Testament period, and there are laws about it there, but this is not mentioned here or in the two other Gospels where the ban on divorce and remarriage is mentioned.
This teaching has, however, persisted in all mainstream Christian denominations to this day, including the Church of England. Since the 19th century, various countries have instituted civil marriages, which, unlike Church marriages, are soluble (ie., breakable), and it is these which are utilised by Jews, Muslims and others who do not wish to marry according to Church rules. But the law was often broken, particularly when kings wanted to break their marriages in order to find a fertile bride. This is what Henry VIII wanted to do when his first bride failed to produce a son, and produced various excuses. (I've heard it said that the Pope refused the divorce under threat from Henry's Spanish wife's brother.) So, he broke away from the Catholic church, and the Church establishment in England eventually formed the Church of England.
The UK has also introduced civil marriages, but the laws governing them in England specifically exclude royals from access to these services. So, on the face of it, these would actually prevent Charles doing what he has announced that he will be doing in a couple of months' time, namely, conducting a civil marriage with Camilla and having the Church "bless" the marriage. According to many legal experts, the marriage will not be valid. Their choices are to either change the law (by hurrying through legislation to amend the laws which ban royals from conducting civil marriages, or with a "Personal Bill" which specifically allows Charles himself to conduct a civil marriage), or by holding the ceremony in Scotland, which has a different legal system and where these laws don't apply.
All this matters because the King or Queen is also the ceremonial head of the Church of England. Still, I fail to see, given that Kings of both the UK and England before it have never had to be saints, why yet another sinner cannot be enthroned as its head now. The Windsor family (Charles' actual surname is Mountbatten-Windsor) is actually a branch of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha clan from Germany, which also forms the Belgian monarchy and has provided kings for other countries including Bulgaria (which is presently a republic, but a former SKG king, Simeon, is currently either President or Prime Minister). In England, the name was changed during World War I. This constant interference in royal marriages is one reason why many people dislike the institution of monarchy in the UK; in my sixth-form college, I saw an article on popular arguments for and against monarchy, and "cruelty to the Royals" is one common argument against. Monarchy prizes the begetting of heirs to the throne above happy or affectionate marriages (it's widely rumoured that there's no great affection between the present Queen and her husband). On two separate occasions in the twentieth century, royals had to choose between their royal role and their relationship. Edward VIII chose his wife, and abdicated (there was, in fact, more to it than that; his American wife was a fascist), and Princess Margaret, the present Queen's sister, chose duty and has never married.
Still, given that Andrew Parker-Bowles has actually since remarried, I can't see why there is any religious obstacle to Charles marrying Camilla anyway. The marriage has broken down, and they both have new partners. The sin, according to the passage in the Bible I mentioned earlier, is being the first to break the marriage tie, by committing adultery (which gives the husband, at least, the right to divorce), or by remarrying first. But then, these laws are only indirectly based on the Bible. The Bible isn't the law (thank God!). The statutes are the law. Of course, Charlie and Camilla could become Muslim, and leave all this behind, but of course they'd leave a lot else behind too. But I don't see why he should be prevented from marrying a woman he loves and has loved for years. They should get these laws sorted, and quickly.
Salaam 'Alaikum
Question... so why did they call her the Princess of Wales then? I thought the wife of the crown prince became the princess? And wasn't there some hullabaloo about the title when they divorced? And can you tell I retain way too much from "People" magazine?
(a US magazine that has always featured an inordinate amount of coverage on the royals, esp. Diana)
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
You're right about the crown prince bit. But European aristocratic custom gives a title to someone followed by their own name when they hold that title of their own right, not to a woman who marries the holder of the title. Otherwise, she is called "Princess" followed by her husband's name - in this case, Princess Charles - or by her own title, in this case Lady Diana, because she was an earl's daughter. There is currently a Princess Michael of Kent, whose husband is the real Prince Michael of Kent. I don't know what her real name is.
(It used to be an English tradition that a woman came to be known as, say, Mrs John Smith. This has died out for perhaps obvious reasons, but it remains in identifying aristocrats in countries where they still exist.)
I think the reason there was a controversy over the title is because she's the mother of an heir to the throne, so it seemed only right that she should have some title. Also, she was extremely popular and was seen as someone who was victimised by the supposedly cold and heartless royals. She was seen as the "people's princess", even though actually she was from a petty aristocratic family.
Salaams:
Aha! That explains the Princess Michael thing. I always thought that giving a girl that name seemed a little too forward thinking / free spirited for the royals.
salam alaikoum
what surprises me is how Camilla has played her cards right and kept her mouth shut for thirty years despite being maligned on all sides, thus earning the right to be a spouse due to good behavior marks. I wonder if the payoff--marriage--will be worth it for her.
What I haven't heard is the fact that doesn't Charles lose the right to be King by getting remarried, to a divorcee, nonetheless? Not like there is any shot in hell that his mother is going to kick the bucket anytime soon, but ... who knows.
Umm Hamza: well, as I pointed out earlier, the last time a king had to abdicate for this reason, there were other complicating factors like the bride being a foreigner and a fascist. Also, Charles and Edward VIII (real name David) are totally different characters. Charles is a middle-aged man who has always been groomed for kingship, and expects it. David/Edward was always seen as not quite royal material in terms of his attitudes and lifestyle. His father, the previous king, was very unhappy with him. This isn't so with Charlie, although some worry that he has too many opinions of his own.
This site shows the monarch of Belgium was the ninth most murderous regieme, of the 20th century.