Question about Royal Wedding

entwisi · 09-04-2005, 18:25

I had a thought this afternoon and was wondering if anyone knew the answer.

At the Registry Office there is a part of the ceremony where they ask if anyone knows of any reason why these two can't marry. Now my understanding is that there must be the opportunity for anyone to walk in and object. How does this fit with the security etc? i.e. couldn't Osama just walk right in there? If he was refused access then surely the marriage can't be legal?

Just curious really.

grego · 09-04-2005, 18:53

Not sure but their forthcoming wedding would've had to be on public display as with normal weddings so maybe if anyone had a good enough reason they'd have to put it in writing, cant think of any other way.

PurpleLass · 09-04-2005, 19:27

Doesn't it say 'does anybody here present have any objections' or words to that effect? So, if the people who want to object aren't there they can't object.

-pixie · 09-04-2005, 19:35

I think I read in one of the papers that they had set up a separate desk at a nearby council office to deal with any objections, as the security and seating arrangements at the venue wouldn't allow for anyone to object whilst the ceremony was in progress.
Apparently there was one priest at the end of it all saying that the marriage wasn't legal and it was the whole "Mrs Simpson" thing all over again.

WillowTheWhisp · 09-04-2005, 20:42

That's a really good point Ian because in my understanding (with my "authorised person" hat on) the venue has to be open to the public so that anyone who wishes to witness the ceremony may do so and may object. There is specific wording which has to be a part of the ceremony in order for it to be legal. I didn't see the wedding itself but I'm presuming they did the "I call upon these persons here present" bit.

I actually thought the church blessing afterwards was a bit of a hypocritical farce because they practically used the wording of a wedding ceremony even down to the "I do" bit and yet the church wouldn't actually marry them.

Doug · 09-04-2005, 20:51

You can see it all here yourselves.

http://www.webwedding.co.uk/articles...es/content.htm

Doug · 09-04-2005, 20:53

Have a look here, it maybe helpful.

http://www.webwedding.co.uk/articles...es/content.htm
******, sorry I didn't think the other post had gone.

grego · 09-04-2005, 20:56

Much to my surprise I watched todays wedding, well inbetween playing with Ellie, though I dont remember seeing the vows, I thought it was really nice, I've never been a Royalist but Camilla is growing on me a bit now, a love that has spanned 30 years must count for something?

Doug · 09-04-2005, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by grego

Much to my surprise I watched todays wedding, well inbetween playing with Ellie, though I dont remember seeing the vows, I thought it was really nice, I've never been a Royalist but Camilla is growing on me a bit now, a love that has spanned 30 years must count for something?

I agree with you grego, the fact that this relationship has survived all those year and continues to survive amid constant criticism should be recognised by those who believe they know better. What amazes me is how all those that enjoy belittling these people hide their own little misdeeds indiscretions and failures. Let these people live their lives and leave them to make their own beds, and ourselves get on with making our own.

West Ender · 09-04-2005, 21:44

I'm definitely not a royalist and I think what has transpired with this pair over the last 25 years is despicable, a "brood-mare" marriage between him and Diana and the typical royal attitude of having a wife for the heirs and a mistress for the frolics. HOWEVER, I almost admire Charles for standing up to his mother, at long last, and making an honest woman of the (now) future queen.

I am cynical enough to believe that he felt marriage was the only option, when his future job-description includes the title "Defender of the Faith", because the world and its wife knew all about Camilla but I think HMQ would have preferred Camilla to be kept on the periphery. What mother doesn't go to her son's wedding unless she disapproves of the occasion?

Anyway, for all that, Camilla looked lovely today - who wouldn't with the ££££s at her disposal? - and I have the feeling they will have a very happy and successful marriage. It's a very different world, now, from the time when the Duke of Windsor married Wallis Simpson and the Establishment (in particular the Queen Mother) refused to accept her.

Doug · 09-04-2005, 21:55

I haven't seen any of it yet, I have heard that it was a nice wedding and that they look happy. Good for them. We all make mistakes, right or wrong they are married now and hopefully people will leave well alone.

PurpleLass · 09-04-2005, 21:58

I am bit confused about all the objections. Wasn't the Church of England set up because Henry VIII was refused a divorce by the Pope? So the founder of the Church of England divorced his wife and then went on to marry five more!!!! Bit hypocritical to start preaching about the sanctity of marriage. If it wasn't for someone wanting to divorce his wife and marry his mistress you'd all still be Catholics.

PurpleLass · 09-04-2005, 21:59

And another thing. Why has everyone been making a fuss about Charles, didn't Anne get remarried not that long ago - don't remember anyone fussing about her marrying her bit on the side.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of Charles and Camilla being married, I just can't understand everyone else's objections.

Doug · 09-04-2005, 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurpleLass

I am bit confused about all the objections. Wasn't the Church of England set up because Henry VIII was refused a divorce by the Pope? So the founder of the Church of England divorced his wife and then went on to marry five more!!!! Bit hypocritical to start preaching about the sanctity of marriage. If it wasn't for someone wanting to divorce his wife and marry his mistress you'd all still be Catholics.

Thats one way of looking at it purpleLass.

PurpleLass · 09-04-2005, 22:01

Sorry, I know it's a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it.