Posted on 02/19/2005 5:55:25 PM PST by Scenic Sounds
CHURCHGOERS are to be commanded by royal warrant to pray for Camilla Parker Bowles as part of regular Sunday services after her marriage to the Prince of Wales on April 8.
The Queen is planning to issue the warrant in formal recognition of her new daughter-in-law’s status as one of the most high-ranking members of the royal family.
At the moment, only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and Charles are individually remembered by the Church of England in state prayers during services of matins and evensong.
Meanwhile doubts have been raised by senior lawyers over the legality of Charles and Camilla’s marriage. The couple are due to marry in the register office at Windsor Guildhall.
In a paper submitted to Lord Goldsmith, the attorney- general, Stephen Cretney QC, an emeritus fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, argues that members of the royal family are barred by a 19th century law from marrying in civil ceremonies.
The decision to change the prayers is controversial on two counts. The Queen removed the name of Diana, the late Princess of Wales, from the list after her divorce in 1996, at the same time as she withdrew her style of royal highness. The decision was attacked by Diana’s circle as “spiteful and humiliating”.
Some churchgoers may also object to praying for the woman whose adultery played a part in the divorce and who is not allowed to remarry in church.
The new wording to be used in the prayers is expected to state: “Almighty God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Charles, Prince of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall.” There is a separate prayer for the Queen.
Yesterday senior church sources disclosed, after informal contacts with Buckingham Palace, that the warrant would be issued. The palace said: “The granting of a royal warrant to incorporate the duchess into state prayers will be done in consultation between the church and the palace. That consultation has still to be held.”
Lord Puttnam, a friend of Diana, said he found the decision “a little puzzling” and said he would discuss it with bishops in the House of Lords.
Opposition will also come from groups in the church that remain opposed to the remarriage of Charles and Parker Bowles. Two bodies, Church Society and Reform, believe Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was wrong to approve of the arrangements.
Senior lawyers have also voiced opposition.
They include Cretney, whose view is supported by one former attorney-general and two other former senior law officers. He argues that the Marriage Act 1836 disallows members of the royal family from marrying in a civil ceremony.
This exclusion, Cretney argues, was updated in every subsequent amending statute, including the Marriage Act 1949 which governs civil weddings today.
Cretney recommends a “simple bill putting beyond doubt the capacity of members of the royal family to contract civil marriages”.
Sources close to Goldsmith said he would respond directly to Cretney but that there could be no comment on whether the palace had asked for fresh advice.
Paul Williamson, a parish priest at St George’s, Hanworth, west London, will lodge a formal objection tomorrow to force the palace to publish its legal advice.
This weekend one former attorney-general endorsed Cretney’s argument. He said: “If I was advising the Queen now, I think I’d have the legislation clarified. It could be passed through both houses in about five minutes.”
The wedding has already been dogged by one legal hitch. It had to be switched from Windsor Castle to the Guildhall because officials failed to advise Charles and Camilla about the difficulties of obtaining a licence for the castle to host the marriage.
The palace remains adamant, however, that the wedding was endorsed ahead of the announcement by four independent experts.
Goldsmith will now consider whether the government may need to put a bill through parliament to allow the civil ceremony.
However, Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, indicated last night that the government was content with the legality of the marriage, saying the prohibition on royal civil marriage ended in 1949.
He said the government had been thorough, ministers were confident of the ceremony’s legality, and they wished to put no bar in the way of the wedding.
Works for me. ;-)
Could be worse, they could be commanded to accept a homosexual Bishop.
"Did you or did you not pray for Camilla?"
"Yes."
"Any witnesses?"
"God."
Has the Royal Warrant for tampon-boy to be "prayed for" been decreed yet?
Their time'd be better spent praying for her before they wed - as in that they don't.
While the word "order" may be used, in this case it is not the word associated as an issued directive, or a command, or anything resembling a mandatory obligation.
And the Brits wonder why we kicked their butts out of our country.
By ROYAL WARRANT, Her Majesty the Queen has COMMANDED that Her subjects pray for Camilla!!
You must be some kind of troublemaker or something!!!
Anyone else see the irony of this controversy in the church that was started solely for the purpose of legitimizing Henry the Eighth's marriages?
Once again, we see the tragic results of inbreeding!!
I find it hilarious that Camilla's title will be Royal Consort! I thought these titles were "bestowed"...looks like she earned hers. Charles is no spring chicken....Maybe they ought to command that the English now pray for the makers of Viagra.
Thank God for our Revolution!
Long live King George Bush!
LOL! Well I'm an American patriot, if that's what you mean. :)
From the Fury of Camilla, Deliver us oh L-rd....
LOL!
Can anyone get 'em to pay for my rhinoplasty and bunion cushions?
I cant help but laugh reading your use of phrase.
"..or something!!!"
HA HA HA sounds like something I'd say. Good job
TPD
It is a bit of a stretch to pay homage to her. When I get my invite to the festivities, I may have to respectfully decline. I'm certain there is a flower and garden show somewhere on the blessed date.
Pray? for what? Plastic surgery?
I pray Charles never becomes King.
Anyone know what the liberal left in the U.S. have said about this? What, nothing? Strange, when the real church-state relationship is seen full face they have nothing to say.
I pray she and Charles wake up one day and no longer look like horses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.