Downing Street Says » Prince of Wales Marriage

Asked what the Prime Minister’s response to the Prince of Wales’s announcement about his forthcoming marriage, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said he was delighted by the news and would be passing on the best wishes of the Cabinet.

Asked how the Prime Minister had been involved, and how long had he known about the announcement in advance for, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had known for some time, but had only informed a very few people. The PMOS said that "the number of people in No10 who knew of this were fewer than the fingers of one hand, and that remained the position until this morning". Any suggestion that there was a leak from No10 was categorically wrong.

Asked if Alastair Campbell was one of the fingers on that hand, the PMOS said the only people who had been told were working within No10.

Asked if the Prime Minister had given constitutional consent to the marriage, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had offered his advice, and Ministers had been consulted about the legal aspects.

Put to him that if Ministers had to offer legal advice, then surely more people outside No10 must have known about the announcement as well, the PMOS replied that the people who knew about it were within No10, and some people were consulted in their relevant legal role.

Asked again that therefore more people outside No10 must have known, the PMOS said that out of necessity, Ministers had to be consulted in their official legal capacity.

Asked what had been discussed by the Ministers, the PMOS said he could not talk about legal advice. This was a matter for the Palace.

Asked what legal advice was needed, the PMOS said people could speculate for themselves about what the legal advice might be, but conventionally, he would not discuss it.

Asked about the legislation behind the marriage, the PMOS said that it was a matter for the Palace.

Asked repeatedly about the various legal and legislative matters regarding the marriage, the PMOS said he could not answer them, and they were a matter for the Palace. He was not going to talk about legal advice in any way.

Asked if the Prime Minister would be offering advice to the Prince of Wales regarding his marriage, in much the same way as John Major offered advice when the Prince of Wales was separating from the Princess of Wales, the PMOS said he thought people would understand that he was not going to brief in any way about private conversations between the Prime Minister and the Palace.

Asked if the Leader of the House would be saying anything about the marriage announcement later this afternoon, the PMOS said: no. It was a business statement, and nothing more.

Asked why the Prime Minister would not be making a statement to the House, the PMOS said it did not require one.

Asked what Cabinet had said upon hearing the announcement, the PMOS said they had all expressed their best wishes.

Asked if the Prime Minister would be a guest at the wedding, the PMOS said the guest list was matter for the Palace.

Asked if the Prime Minister had known about the date of the wedding, the PMOS said it was a matter for the Palace.

Asked again about the timing of the announcement, the PMOS replied that for whatever reason, it was becoming public, and the Palace had confirmed it this morning. Again, it was a matter for the Palace.

Asked to confirm that the Evening Standard had been the first to correctly pick up on the marriage announcement story, the PMOS replied it had correctly attributed the story to a source in the Royal Household, and it was indeed a Standard scoop! At this point in Lobby, the journalist said thank you, and hurried out! The PMOS asked if this behaviour was in keeping with lobby rules!!

Asked again about how many knew about the Prince of Wales’s forthcoming marriage, and did Alastair Campbell know, the PMOS repeated that not only did he not speak for Alastair Campbell, but also very few people knew about the announcement. Those who did know were within No10, with the exception of those Ministers who constitutionally had to be involved.

Asked again why the Prime Minister was not giving a statement, and what would he say in response about the announcement, the PMOS replied that there was a limited amount that the Prime Minister could say about it. This was a matter for the Palace, and involved legal matters that were being handled by the usual conventions. The PMOS asked that people were not surely requesting that those conventions were breached by holding a discussion about the legal advice. He said again that the discussions held with the Palace remained private.

Asked if Mrs Parker Bowles would become the "Second People’s Princess", the PMOS said the journalist should wait for a briefing from a Palace correspondent.

Asked about the Prime Minister’s appearance on "Richard and Judy" later today, and would they discuss the marriage announcement, the PMOS said it was a matter for Richard and Judy. He added that he thought they might want to discuss the Prime Minister’s thoughts about the wedding! The Prime Minister would not have very much to say about the wedding, as there was not much he could say about it.

Asked if the Prime Minister had held discussions with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the PMOS replied he would not reveal private conversations.

9 Comments »

I’ve read a lot of PMOS briefings here, but this one has to go down as a classic.

It’s got it all. The stonewalling, the repeated questions needed to extract information, the buck passing, the Alastair Campbell fixation, the media trying to create the story – "Second People’s Princess"!?!, the lobby’s pointed attempts to stitch the PM up, and PMOS’s sly digs at the lobby.
Comment by square peg — 10 Feb 2005 on 5:17 pm | Link
I’m sad because this announcement has buried other more serious matters that just didn’t get raised.
I’m wondering if the timing was deliberate and am looking to see what has been swept under the carpet.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 10 Feb 2005 on 5:51 pm | Link
i am very dissapointed with the fact that my labour party, is allowing this marriage. this country has in the past been called great briton it did this because of its history you are wiping its history away shame on you tony
Comment by edgar garnham — 10 Feb 2005 on 8:56 pm | Link
Well it’s not like he can refuse his permission, Edgar; and it’s never been called Great Briton! Great Britain, maybe, but even then I don’t see what any of that has to do with Bliar giving his "permission" for Charles to get hitched. I mean, look at some of the shenanigans that went on in the past in the royal family; wholesale pillage and murder; why should Charles marrying his bit on the side be so bad? My only concerns are that they don’t spend obscene sums of money, and that it doesn’t cost the taxpayer a sou. Unfortunately, I rather suspect it will – with Tony Bliar giving our blessing for a squillion quid of taxpayers money for them all to get royally (pardon the pun) pissed on…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 11 Feb 2005 on 12:12 am | Link
Well it’s not like he can refuse his permission, Edgar; and it’s never been called Great Briton! Great Britain, maybe, but even then I don’t see what any of that has to do with Bliar giving his "permission" for Charles to get hitched. I mean, look at some of the shenanigans that went on in the past in the royal family; wholesale pillage and murder; why should Charles marrying his bit on the side be so bad? My only concerns are that they don’t spend obscene sums of money, and that it doesn’t cost the taxpayer a sou. Unfortunately, I rather suspect it will – with Tony Bliar giving our blessing for a squillion quid of taxpayers money for them all to get royally (pardon the pun) pissed on…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 11 Feb 2005 on 12:12 am | Link
It has been expected that his familly would play the show pretending to "be reserved" about his marriage. The familly and himself have been quiet for a number of years in order not to upset their constituency.Charles, with the support of his familly have made a mockery of the institution of marriage and the royals dream that the world has forgotten his unmanly behavior with princess Dianna.
Camila is already the queen of instigation an underhandedness and deserves her reward. Betrayal of friends and doubledealings are being promoted. Long life to new values!
Comment by Jaime Lembach — 25 Feb 2005 on 9:04 pm | Link
I am from the United States and just wanted to voice my opinion on the marriage of the Prince of Wales.

I feel the Prince deserves the happiness this marriage will surely give him and his furture wife.
He deserves to live out his life with a woman in is truley in love with.

I feel sorry for those British that feel this woman broke up a marriage. The marriage was never solid to start with if both strayed. Let the past be in the past.

The Prince’s son’s support their father and the only that matters is that. His family is in agreement.

Who cares if the Queen doesn’t attend. They need to get into the present time.

I just wanted to say may both the Prince and his future bride have many blissful years of love to come.
Comment by Rita Watkins — 28 Feb 2005 on 2:15 am | Link
I think that it is a disgrace to Prince William and Prince Harry that their father is marrying the woman he cheated on his wife with, and is now flaunting that adulteress relationship in front of her sons. I think it dishonors Princess Diana, who seemed like a wonderful, kind person. How do you think it will make his son’s and his constituents feel about him and his ability to make good judgments as a king.
Comment by An Observer — 12 Apr 2005 on 4:40 am | Link
Well, THEY didn’t seem too bothered – so why are you?!?!?!?!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 12 Apr 2005 on 12:58 pm | Link

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.

» Thursday, February 10, 2005

Prince of Wales Marriage

9 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries