» Thursday, February 10, 2005

Royal Wedding

Asked if he could clarify any of the constitutional details of the Prince of Wales recent announcement of his intention to marry Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as he understood it there were no plans for legislation at this stage. Put him that she might automatically become Queen without legislation, the PMOS said that at this stage, the Palace did not see a reason for any legislation to be made.

Asked if Alastair Campbell was one of the handful of people in Downing Street who had known about the engagement, the PMOS said no. The PMOS said that the Prime Minister had not told Alastair Campbell about the engagement and neither had anyone else in Government. Asked about the possibilities for legislation in the future, the PMOS said that what he couldn’t do was get into the legal advice that Minister’s gave to the Queen. He could not comment on that in any way. The Palace had said that they did not see any reason for legislation at this stage. Asked if the Prime Minister had been told last Friday the PMOS said that that was not correct. Asked if he could elaborate the PMOS said no could not.

Asked whether it was the Government or the Palace who initiated legislation on these matters, the PMOS repeated that he could not talk about the legal advice that the Government had given the Palace. Furthermore he was not a lawyer but his understanding was that there was no need for legislation at this stage.

Put to him that there was nothing in the Royal Marriages Act which required the Queen to consult the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that it was a established practice for the Queen to consult the Prime Minister. Asked if it could be deduced that it becomes a legislative issue only when Charles becomes King, the PMOS said that was a matter to dealt with at that time. He would not speculate about that time.

Asked if there would be a public holiday to celebrate the wedding, the PMOS said he didn’t believe there were any plans to. Asked if we would get anything out of it, the PMOS said that he suspected that the volume of political stories would be quite low on that, so there was some consolation.

Asked if he could discuss any of the issues discussed by the Queen and the Prime Minister other than legal issues, the PMOS said that he never commented on conversations between the Prime Minister and the Monarch and it would inappropriate for him to do so.

Briefing took place at 15:45 | Search for related news


  1. I have no objection to the marriage, PROVIDING that Charles steps down as King, it would/should be impossible for him to be come King marriage or not give his history he could not surely stand and become head of the church. The law should not change to suit individuals, he know what he was doing and risking when he committed adultery. The public have had enough of paying for these people.

    Comment by Dinsmore — 11 Feb 2005 on 5:44 pm | Link
  2. I refer you, gentle reader, to the front page of "The Independent"(11 Feb 05), which illustrates how banal and conscienceless we are become as a national readership.
    There is a choice of ELEVEN other current major issues of great import to the life of the thinking citizen… and in the general press, we instead are fed a load of pap about what he said to her, how she replied, what the ring looks like (tasteless, and I’ve seen a few): ye gods! I’m always pleased when A and B come together and are happy in Eastenders, Corrie etc – but this is our (shudder) possible future King! Get a grip!
    Yours, Disgusted of England.

    Comment by aunty q — 12 Feb 2005 on 1:53 am | Link
  3. Why, exactly, can he not be head of the Church if he marries a divorcee? Was not The Church of England founded on beheading and divorcing and re-marrying? the fact that it is an entirely soulless organisation with no religious import makes him an ideal head, I would say.

    And I also think that if we have to have a King or a Queen at all, it really ought to be Charles. If you are going to have a pathetically archaic system such as a monarchy, you should at least pay some attention to getting it right. The whole thing is founded on the very fact it doesn’t matter if the entire populace thinks the next King is a complete tw**, or even if he is a lying murderer, he still gets to be King, and we all have to give him a lot of our money to do it. The fact that he has re-married, has big ears and is a trifle querulous should be of no import.

    Comment by Lodjer — 14 Feb 2005 on 2:05 pm | Link
  4. Beyond all the comments that people has been said about this relationship between prince Charles and Camila,is not a secret for anybody that they have been in love for long time ago. A true love I mean , most of the people search eagerly for the real love along their lives most of the time without finding it. So I am really happy for them and I wish the best for this couple brave enough to show openly their mutual feelings despite many many things.

    Comment by yazmin seynave — 20 Feb 2005 on 12:20 am | Link
  5. Its a pity that humans are so quick to condemn those that come open of it. What is so wrong about marrying someone of your age? It would be meaningless for charles to hook up witha 20s or a 30s in terms of age for a future queen.

    If he is happy in his old love, so be it. People can choose clothes and furniture, houses and games, but man, a choice for a wife or a job lies squarely with a person.

    Ride on Charles, by the end of April, they will have gotten used to it, and your happiness is all that counts in your life.

    Comment by Lucy N. Gitonga — 24 Feb 2005 on 12:36 pm | Link
  6. As far as I am concerned Charles can marry whoever, whenever, wherever and however he likes. If he wants to officially get his leg over the old bint that’s up to him, but I don’t see why the nation should be urged to be pleased either way. Just as long as I don’t have to pick up any of the bill or have the ghastly spectacle repeatedly drawn to my attention via the media.

    However at her age she’ll probably make a better fist of being queenly than the grim Diana. In the main, Royalty does a pretty average job, but currently it’s not good value for the taxpayer’s money – no dignity, no sense and too obviously media driven.

    It’s also entertaining to note how the courtiers ‘advising’ are coming in for a bit of stick. Watch out for further Palace infighting in the next few weeks. I wonder how long it will be before the ubiquitous Burrell gets in on the act……..

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 24 Feb 2005 on 1:36 pm | Link
  7. Hi

    I think charles and camila should be married where ever they wish

    Diane said there were three people in her marrage to charles and that he committed adultory

    look at harry and hewitt?

    there wasn’t three people in there marrage it looks like for and who commited adultory first I will let you work that out it wasn’t all charles

    Comment by sam — 25 Feb 2005 on 8:03 pm | Link
  8. shamless. Camila, shamless. Just no comment for this so-called love. This is the way they get their sympathy. Lets wait and see what will this woman do after she finally get what she always wants. She will show her nature sooner or later. Double age but half beauty of Dianna.
    Dianna hate her, I wish Dianna could see all this in the heaven. Camila should get her punishment!

    Comment by sunny — 14 May 2005 on 11:46 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


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.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


February 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jan   Mar »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh