h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You have to ask the question why now? The only reason I can think of is the health of the Queen or Prince Phillip. Better to get any controversy out of the way prior to the succession. If Phillip went first the Queen might well abdicate in Charles's favour.

No matter what, the civil wedding will take place. If the future King wants something, he gets it, especially if the Queen wants it too. In the absence of a written constitution legal arguments become a matter of opinion and the Lord Chancellor has already given a favourable opinion.

>> because we don't have a written constitution <<

But we do - its not just that its not all written down in one place.

In this instance we are referring to The Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Royal Marriage Act of 1772, neither of which have been committed to memory by anyone.

Both these acts prohibit the marriage of the heir of the throne to a Catholic unless they renounce the throne.

In the case of Wallis Simpson it should be remembered that in the 1930s marriage to a divorcée was prohibited by the Church of England. Those rules have been relaxed and it is now possible for a divorcée to marry in the Church of England. Its down the judgement and willingness of the Vicar you ask to perform the ceremony.

Obviously Charles couldn't find a Vicar willing to do the deed.

Donald

Should have gone to Scotland like Princess Anne.

Should all renounce claim to the throne they can get married to who they want where they want when they want.

AND STOP BORING ME WITH IT ALL.

Like or loath the monarchy it is still a better option than President Blair who would presumably imprison people suspected of doing wrong based on intelligence that is too sensitive for anybody else to see including a judge. Remember the dodgy dossier. Your call.

>> intelligence that is too sensitive for anybody else to see including a judge <<

As long as he shows it to Alistair Campbell for sexing up, that's OK.

RTC

I find it hysterically funny that the only alernative to the monarchy is a some power hungry tyrant.

History shows this to be utter cobblers, I'm afraid.

Shrub ?

America is a good example, yes. Perfectly democratic (whether you like thwe results or not, it is a democracy). France. Post war Germany. Post war italy. Post Franco Spain. Most of Scandinavia. Quite a bit of central and south America.

TB?

It is one of the facts of life that those least suited to positions of power are those that want it.

Let's not forget the world's largest democracy, India.

>> America is a good example, yes. Perfectly democratic <<

America isn't a Democracy. It's a Plutocracy masquerading under a veil of Democracy.

Donald

Absolutely correct D the last thing the Founding Fathers wanted was a democracy.

More accurate would be a Plutocratic Gerontocracy.

Camilla, Camilla,
Your prince you've finally won!
Camilla, Camilla,
Who gives a toss, no ooooone!