Downing Street Says » Royal Wedding/Legal Advice

» Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Royal Wedding/Legal Advice

Asked if the Prime Minister was going to go to the Royal wedding, or just the reception, or the blessing, etc, the PMOS that he would await an invitation before making a comment or speculating.

Put to him that so close to the wedding of the Heir to the Throne, the Prime Minister did not know whether he was going, the PMOS said that we would comment at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.

Asked if the Cabinet was going to "subscribe to a present", the PMOS smiled and said that the Cabinet had sent its warmest congratulations on the day the announcement was made.

Asked why the Lord Chancellor had decided to publish the legal advice regarding the Royal Wedding, and was that a direct response from the Royals asking the Government to put out that information, the PMOS replied that there were questions being asked about the legal aspects that lay behind the advice. The Lord Chancellor therefore thought it was right in those circumstances to provide as full an explanation as he could. The Lord Chancellor’s view was in was in the public’s interest that people shared his analysis upon which the Government’s advice was based.

Put to him that the Lord Chancellor felt some of his predecessors were "overcautious", and therefore could one deduce from that that Princess Margaret should have been allowed to marry, and whether the Human Rights Act was the key driver regarding the whole situation, the PMOS said in response to the first question, he declined to comment. In response to the second part, the precise words used by the Lord Chancellor did not fit the explanation with regards to the importance of the Bill. The analysis stood for itself, and the Lord Chancellor had explained the use of the Human Rights Act with regards to the Royal Wedding issue.

Asked why the Lord Chancellor had "bolstered" the existing legislation with the Human Right Act as well, the PMOS replied that he did not pretend to be a lawyer, and would therefore not put a legal interpretation on the analysis.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.