|
|
|
|
|
Well, now this is a bit of a
sticky wicket. It seems Camilla has no
choice but to become Queen if and when Charles
accedes to the throne. On
announcing his engagement, Charles said that his future
wife, who is to
take on the title Duchess of Cornwall upon their marriage, would be
known
as the Princess Consort when he accedes to the throne.
But the
British government says that legislation would be required to deny
Camilla her
queendom, and this is a very big deal because then the law would have to be changed not
only in the United Kingdom, but in Commonwealth nations like Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. At least one Member of Parliament thinks that Charles has been less than
aboveboard about this whole Camilla-will-not-be-queen position because Charles knows that
since 1936 the King's spouse automatically becomes Queen; there is no way around it
unless there is a law passed to the contrary. Charles' camp insists that Camilla and he
are perfectly content with the "Princess Consort" title and have been aware that
legislation might be needed to effect this. As the law stands now, Camilla can call
herself anything she
wants – Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Consort, whatever – but the
queen thing
sticks.
How much are these two birds costing Her Majesty's
subjects so they can
make a 35-year affair legal? And what of public opinion?
According to the BBC, the British public doesn't seem to care much about Charles and
Camilla marrying, with a few saying they wouldn't mind a public holiday
in
recognition of the wedding, and some don't care if Charles marries Camilla
as
long as the British public doesn't have to subsidize her or her wedding. A few feel
Charles should go the way of his uncle Edward VIII and renounce his claim to the throne,
marry the woman he loves and go off somewhere and live quietly with her. In short, if
Edward couldn't have his wife and the throne, then Charles shouldn't either. Still
others believe the marriage of Charles and Camilla is a step toward a modern
monarchy
and Camilla should become Queen. And of course, there are those
who wonder how
Charles can head the Monarchy when he can't even get
married
right.
And what about Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? If I were in his shoes,
I'd be pretty ticked off. I mean, here's a guy who married the Princess Elizabeth more
than 50 years ago, had to settle for the title of Prince Consort upon his wife's
accession and has been walking two steps behind her ever since. Is all of this fair to
him? How come a wife can become queen if her husband is king, but a man can't become
king if his wife
accedes to the throne? And what happens to the Prince Consort if he
should
outlive his wife? What is he called then? The Prince Father? Or maybe he's
relegated forever to Dukedom while Queen Camilla parades about town. What, a king can
have a queen,
but a queen can't have a king? Are kings entitled to more than queens?
Sounds like a testosterone issue to me, but I digress.
It seems that
this might be a good time for the British government to get
their act together and
modernize their laws. Without question, the
Monarchy has evolved and the attempt by
Charles and Camilla to get married
is a glaring example. It was even questionable if
a civil ceremony would
be legal, as the 1949 Marriage Act, which "updated" the law on
civil
marriages in England, excluded the Royal Family from civil ceremonies.
(Hey,
here's an idea – get married somewhere other than England.) But they
got around that
because someone somewhere found some legislation – the
European Convention on Human
Rights and 1998 Human Rights Act – which
apparently does not prevent the royal
marriage. It should be noted that
while the 1998 legislation doesn't specifically
say Royals can marry in
civil ceremonies, it doesn't specifically say they can't.
Ah, there's the rub. I guess this legislation lumps the Royals in with the rest of
humanity rather than in a class by themselves. Well, it's a step forward, I suppose. I
guess no one thought to repeal the old law, so there was some confusion for a
while.
But the couple passed that hurdle and out came the stamps bearing
Charles'
and Camilla's smiling faces. All is right with the world and the
wedding
is on. The couple's eldest sons, Prince William and Tom Parker Bowles, will
be witnesses to their parents' wedding. Isn't that nice? And Charles and Camilla are
going to be married by a Superintendent Registrar who is herself a divorced mother of
two. "I am absolutely delighted that I have been asked to conduct this unique and
historic ceremony," the SR gushed to the press. Unique and historic – that's one way to
put it.
The Queen still isn't going and neither is Prince Philip (can you
blame
him?). But Princes Andrew and Edward and their wives and Princess
Anne and
her husband will be in attendance. Camilla's dad is going too.
Well, they have to
fill the 30-seat Ascot Room somehow. I understand
there will be 750 guests at the
blessing at the chapel at Windsor Castle. They must have rented some
people.
And what about this low-key business? According to Reuters,
Charles and
Camilla will be driven the few yards from Windsor Castle to the
Windsor
town hall in a vintage Rolls Royce Phantom V, once used by the
Queen
Mother. Wait a minute – didn't Camilla's engagement ring belong to
the
Queen Mother? And aren't Charles and Camilla living in Clarence House,
where
the Queen Mother resided? Am I the only one who sees a pattern
here? I think Camilla
has Queen Mother Envy.
And hey, don't forget your souvenirs. In addition
to a cheap knock-off of
Camilla's engagement ring, you can get an official Charles
and Camilla
tankard, made from bone china and decorated with 22k gold. These go
on
sale March 26 at a royal residence near you. So if you're hanging around
the
Windsor town hall hoping for a glimpse of the bride and groom on their
wedding day,
you may want to pop across the street to Windsor Castle and
get yourself a mug. If
you don't want to spend £20 for the mug, you can
get an inexpensive key chain with a
picture of Charles and Camilla on it.
There's also a Windsor Castle plate and the
ubiquitous photo of Charles in
his red-collared tux and Camilla in her red dress, left
hand prominently
displayed on her clutch purse so the engagement ring catches the
light
just so. "Look everyone! I've got him!" she seems to be saying through
her
smile.
There's a tea towel with their faces set against the Union Jack,
but I think it's ugly (the tea towel, not the Union Jack). There are also t-shirts and
caricature masks of the couple. (Some might think the masks are more attractive than
their counterparts.)
I'm holding out for a replica of Camilla's wedding
hat.
|
|
|
|
