‘Duchess of Cornwall’ is a made-up title

Mary Kenny
Wisely, perhaps, Catholic sources have not ventured an opinion on the ecclesiastical complexities surrounding the forthcoming marriage of the Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles. The theological arguments are seen as a matter for the Church of England.
If the Prince of Wales were a Catholic, though, he would now be regarded as widower, and not a divorcé. He might also have qualified for an annulment of his first marriage on the obvious grounds that he was not voluntarily committed to it, but was shoehorned into it by family pressures. Camilla, obviously, remains a divorcée – at least until her ex-husband departs this world. Those who go in for conspiracy theories might now warn Mr Andrew Parker Bowles to take extra special care of himself.
The difficulties that the royals encounter are these: the future Governor of the Church of England cannot actually remarry in a C of E church, because the Anglican church does not remarry divorcés who are the “guilty party” in the breakdown of a marriage.
The idea is that the adulterer should not be rewarded for his adultery. Most Anglicans support this position.
It will, however, marry divorcés who are the “innocent” party – spouses who have been deserted or divorced against their will.
Thus no church wedding: the Prince of Wales has chosen a civil wedding, with a prayer service afterwards.
But there is, apparently, a constitutional impediment to all this: for in the 1836 Act permitting civil weddings, the Royal Family is exempted from the Act. That is to say, royals are not permitted to enter into a civil wedding in England. That is why Princess Anne went to Scotland to have her registry office wedding.
Lawyers for the couple are arguing that the updating of the 1836 Act, which took place in 1948, permits the Prince of Wales to contract a civil wedding; but opposing constitutional lawyers maintain that this is not so. They claim that, since Prince Charles cannot legally enter into a register office wedding in England, a Windsor register office would not therefore be legal.
This might all seem to be somewhat arcane – typical of lawyers to enjoy arguing over the small print of a contract. But it is an interesting symbol, all the same, of just how important the Church of England remains within the British Constitution, and in relation to the Royal Family.
And I’m not sure that the C of E being “by law established” is such a bad thing. The Queen has rather admirably upheld Christianity and incarnated it in her person throughout her reign, and for that we should all be thankful. And, although I’m not particularly a fan of Mrs Parker Bowles, there is something to be said for the photographs, now reproduced on the front pages of the tabloid newspapers with great regularity, of herself and Prince Charles attending church together on Sundays. At least they are trying to give some kind of good example by such attendance. They have both admitted to their adultery – but isn’t the purpose of a church to receive sinners?
For all that, certain constitutional and other problems still remain for Charles and Camilla. The public, for example, most emphatically does not want a Queen Camilla. But, again, the constitutional lawyers claim that, once Charles becomes King, his wife automatically becomes Queen.
Indeed, once he re-marries, his wife automatically becomes Princess of Wales. The royals cannot go around making up titles such as “Duchess of Cornwall”.
For Charles, as for his subjects, there are no easy solutions to life’s little problems.
PS Imelda Staunton –
who describes herself