When Archbishop Runcie officiated at the marriage of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer in St. Paul's Cathedral on 29th July 1981, he began his address with these words:- "Here is the stuff of which fairy-tales are made: the Prince and Princess on their wedding day."   When Archbishop Williams presides at the televised service of Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage on 8th April 2005 for the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker-Bowles I wonder if he will be tempted to begin his address with - "Here is the stuff of which (constitutional) nightmares are made......."?

What a kerfuffle there has been over the arrangements for the Prince of Wales' civil marriage to Mrs. Parker-Bowles.  "THE ROYAL WEDDING FIASCO" was the front page headline in one newspaper as the proposed civil ceremony was transferred from Windsor Castle to the local town hall.  The reason for the unseemly transfer was that if the castle were to be licensed for civil weddings then the world and his wife could apply to be married in Windsor Castle - the thought of the great unwashed trampling over the red carpet proved to be too much for royal sensitivities and so the venue has been changed to Windsor Guild Hall.

We are assured that top legal advice has been sought as to the legality of this union - yet if  such a gaff can be made over the venue for the ceremony we are right to question and cast doubt over the legal status of the marriage itself.

A precedent was set in 1936 when Edward VIII abdicated in order to marry Mrs. Simpson -
                            "Hark the herald angels sing,
                            Mrs. Simpson's pinched our king!"

There was much talk at the time of what was described as a "morganatic" marriage but it all came to naught.  Parliament acted with dignity and promptitude and we were spared what might well have been a disastrous reign.  Alas, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time - Cosmo Gordon Lang gave a radio broadcast following the Abdication in which he was heard to rebuke the former king.  The Archbishop himself was then chided ungenerously for exulting over a beaten adversary:-

            "My Lord Archbishop, what a scold you are!

And when your man is down, how bold you are!

Of Christian charity how scant you are!

And, auld Lang swine, how full of cant you are!"

Edward VIII gave up the throne and became the Duke of Windsor - a title which is still vacant. Princess Margaret also decided against marrying Peter Townsend in 1955 and issued the following statement:-

"I would like it to be known that I have decided not to marry Group-Captain Peter Townsend, I have been aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights to succession, it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage.  But mindful of the Church's teaching, that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others."

It is obvious from the above statement that Princess Margaret was aware of the prohibitions contained within the Marriage Acts of 1836 and 1949 and that she could not have her cake and eat it.  The question must be asked what has changed since then?

Now the Lord Chancellor (he who seems so keen to ditch the 800 year old Magna Carta) seems to be trampling over the laws of our national parliament and finding succour in the European Convention on Human Rights (as, presumably, was the Registrar General when he overruled the objections to the civil marriage ceremony which had been lodged) to seek flimsy backing for the legality of the forthcoming royal union.  Well, the last four weddings involving royalty and where divorce was a factor certainly did not take place in England or Wales - fully conscious of the prohibition contained within the Laws of our national parliament, Princess Anne was married for a second time at the Presbyterian Kirk at Crathie near Balmoral;  the Earl of St. Andrews (eldest son of the Duke and Duchess of Kent) at a register office in Leith, again - North of the Border;  the Queenís first cousin - the Earl of Harewood, married before a judge in the U.S.A.; and Prince Michael of Kent at the town hall in Vienna!  So, what has changed in order to accommodate the devices and desires of the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Parker-Bowles?

What a kerfuffle, indeed.  What twistings and turnings there have been with regard to future titles for Mrs. Parker-Bowles.  Just as the wife of a Sultan is called a Sultana - surely the wife of a Prince is a Princess and not a lower ranked Duchess.  Similarly isnít the wife of a King a Queen - not a Princess Consort?  All this play acting is not treating the people of this nation and the Commonwealth with sufficient maturity and the present Government seems to be making up the British Constitution to suit itself with regard to the future of the Monarchy.  In reality, unless an Act of Parliament is passed to the contrary - the minute Elizabeth II ("Long may she reign") takes her final breath - Camilla will be Queen (if she is indeed legally married to the King?) - whether we like it or not!

Yet, I must be careful in what I write for didnít John the Baptist suffer the severest severance when he publicly rebuked Herod Antipas for his marriage to his niece Herodias, whose first husband was still alive?  I am also mindful of Christís advice dealing with the woman caught in the act of adultery.  None of us is without sin - except Christ alone - all of us are part of Fallen humanity.

In my opinion, with all the constitutional difficulties that will be brought into play on April 8th A.D. 2005,  it would be better for Charles to make a choice between either the Crown or Camilla.  Ah well, there goes the Bishopric!

Footnote:- Did you know that indirectly we in the Church of England pray for His Holiness the Pope every time we say the Prayer for the Church Militant in the service of Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer?  In spite of ungenerously stating - as it does in the Thirty Seventh Article of Religion - "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England", we include the following prayer in the Prayer Book intercession of The Communion service - "We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes and Governors".  The Pope is the Head of State of the Vatican which is effectively a monarchy although, sadly, the present incumbent humbly and modestly chooses not to wear the triple tiara.  However, without a shadow of a doubt Pope John Paul II comes under the category of a "Christian King" and is therefore included in the unspecified list of those of whom we pray for in the Prayer for the Church Militant.  This is altogether good and enhances the spirit of Christian Unity - I, for one, am all in favour of Church Unity - in accordance with Our Lordís prayer in Gethsemane - that they "all be one".