Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
2005/13: Should Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles have married?
Related issue outlines: 1997-98: The death of Diana, Princess of Wales: is the British monarchy likely to survive?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
charles
camilla
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
What they said
'[Charles'] loyalty to Camilla has come before his loyalty to the monarchy.
I wish him congratulations and much happiness today. But ... in the interests of the British people, and for the sake and future of the monarchy, he must now renounce his right to the throne'
Paul Burrell, former butler to Princess Diana
'These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England'
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams
The issue at a glance
On April 9 2005 Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles married in a brief civil service at the Windsor Guildhall. The wedding conducted by a civil celebrant, was witnessed by a small group of family and friends, including Prince Charles two sons, but excluding the Queen and Prince Phillip. The Queen had indicated that she did not consider it appropriate that she attend the wedding. The media was excluded from the service.
The wedding was followed by a televised blessing at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. The blessing conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was attended by some 800 invited guests, including the Queen and Prince Phillip.
The wedding comes 24 years after Prince Charles' first wedding to the then Diana Spencer. They divorced in 1996.
Diana, Princess of Wales, famously referred to Mrs Parker Bowles as one of the contributing factors in the breakdown of her marriage to Charles.
Charles' and Camilla's wedding has provoked controversy because both are divorced and Mrs Parker Bowles' first husband is still alive. The Church of England has traditionally refused to allow such marriages.
Background
The British Monarchy and the Church of England
There is a special relationship between the British monarchy and the Church of England.
The Act of Settlement of 1701 stipulated that the monarch must be a communicant of the Church of England and not marry a Catholic (although any other denomination or faith is technically permissible). Since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the British monarch has had the office of 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England. As a result of this office, monarchs have the power to nominate bishops and other senior figures within the Church of England; however, these appointments are now made by the Prime Minister under the Royal prerogative (since 1977 from a short list drawn up by the Church). Also, by virtue of the office, monarchs have claimed that they rule 'by Divine Permission'.
The Church of England is the 'established' church of Great Britain. This means, as just explained, that it has a special relationship with the monarch and the appointment of its leaders involves both the monarch and the prime minister.
Most European parliaments originally contained representatives of the three most powerful groups in society - the church (meaning the clergy), the nobles, and important commoners. In many countries the three met separately but in England the church's representatives, the bishops and abbots, sat with the nobles. In England the Bishops of the Church of England, or rather some of them, are still members of the House of Lords. (Due to the increase in the number of bishoprics, only the more senior bishops are members.)
As the established church, the Church of England is not a voluntary society with rules made by compact. Instead, its laws are part of the English legal system. Because of the severe limitation on its power to legislate by canon, many changes require the amendment of statute law. Since the laws of the Church are part of the laws of England, the church's courts are part of the English legal system.
Timeline of the relationship of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles
1970: Charles and Camilla Shand, both 23, meet for the first time at a Windsor polo match.
1971: The two become close but the relationship cools when Charles joins the Royal Navy.
July 1973: Camilla marries her long-standing admirer, army officer Andrew Parker Bowles.
November 1977: Charles meets 16-year-old Lady Diana Spencer at Althorp.
Late 1970s: Charles and Camilla keep up contact and became close again towards the end of the decade.
February 6, 1981: Charles proposes to Diana.
July 29, 1981: Lady Diana Spencer marries Prince Charles at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. After his marriage Charles remains close to Camilla.
June 21, 1982: Birth of Prince William to Charles and Diana.
September 15, 1984: Birth of Prince Harry to Charles and Diana.
1985: First reports of difficulties in the royal marriage.
1992: The depth of the intimacy Charles and Camilla share becomes clear when the so-called "Camillagate" tape surfaces.
June 1992: Andrew Morton's book "Diana: Her True Story" is published, alleging she is deeply unhappy and has attempted suicide.
December 9, 1992: Prime Minister John Major announces Charles and Diana are separating "amicably."
June 29, 1994: Charles, in a television interview, says he was unfaithful to Diana after their marriage broke down. Interviewer Jonathan Dimbleby later identifies the other woman as Camilla.
November 1994: Authorized biography of Charles confirms his affair with Camilla. Diana gives television interview in which she says "there were three of us in this marriage."
January 1995: Camilla and her husband Andrew divorce.
December 1995: The queen urges Charles and Diana to divorce.
August 28, 1996: Final divorce decree is granted.
April 1997: Camilla takes a step into public life when she becomes patron of the National Osteoporosis Society.
July 1997: Charles hosts a party for Camilla to celebrate her 50th birthday.
August 31, 1997: Diana and Dodi Fayed die in a car crash in Paris.
October 1998: Charles and Camilla make a rare public appearance at a society wedding in London but arrive apart and avoid being photographed together.
January 1999: Charles and Camilla make their first public appearance together at a 50th birthday party at the Ritz Hotel in central London.
1999: Camilla meets Prince William and Prince Harry for the first time.
June 3, 2000: Queen recognizes the relationship by attending birthday lunch for King Constantine with Camilla present.
June 21, 2000: Charles kisses Camilla in public for the first time.
July 2, 2002: Camilla's first royal engagement in Edinburgh.
June 2004: Camilla appears for the first time in the prince's official accounts.
February 10, 2005: Clarence House announce the Prince of Wales and Camilla are to marry.
Internet information
The ThinkQuest Library is a free educational resource featuring more than 5,500 websites created by students around the world. It has a site summarising the structure of the British Government, including the role of the church and the monarchy. This can be found at http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112187/england_government.htm
The Centre for Citizenship has a clear account of the structure of the British Government, including a detailed account of the relationship between the Government and the Church of England. It can be found at http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/church4.html
The BBC's detailed report of Charles' and Camilla's wedding, including significant background information, can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/charles_and_camilla/default.stm
On March 29 2005 Online Opinion, an Australian e-journal of social and political debate published an opinion piece by Peter van Vliet, a Melbourne based writer and ministerial staffer. The piece, titled, 'Queen Camilla of Australia - no thanks!' argues that Australia should not have to accept a king and in particular, a queen, whom its citizens do not want.
The article can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3286
On April 8 2005, Online Opinion, an Australian e-journal of social and political debate published an opinion piece by Professor David Flint, convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. The piece, titled, 'Republicanism and the Royal Wedding' is a defence of the royal wedding and further argues that it should not be seen as advancing the cause of republicanism in Australia.
The article can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3323
On April 8 2005, Online Opinion, an Australian e-journal of social and political debate published an opinion piece by Greg Barns, a former state and federal government adviser and a Hobart based author. The piece, titled, 'Charles and Camilla - what a fiasco!' is a critique of the royal wedding which suggests it may accelerate the movement of Britain toward becoming a republic. The article can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3328
On April 9 2005 the British newspaper The Guardian published an editorial essentially supporting the marriage of Charles and Camilla but arguing that it demonstrated how outmoded the monarchy had become.
The editorial can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1455733,00.html
On April 9 2005 The Mirror published an interview with Paul Burrell, the former butler of Princess Diana. Burrell argues that Charles' marriage to Camilla should require him to renounce his place in the line of succession.
The article can be found at http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=15382980&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=burrell--charles-should-give-up-throne-name_page.html
On April 11 2005 The Telegraph published an opinion piece titled, 'Charles needs a missus, not a mistress' outlining the advantages that should come from formalising Charles relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles. The article can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/02/11/do1104.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/02/11/ixportal.html
On April 18 2005 Inclusive Church.net published an article outlining the views of a number of key figures in the Church of England who support the marriage of Charles and Camilla.
The article can be found at http://www.inclusivechurch.net/news.html?id=216
Simon Barrow a theologian, writer, adult educator and consultant works for 'Churches Together' in Britain and Ireland. His website includes an article arguing the case for the disestablishment of the Church of England. It can be found at http://www.simonbarrow.net/article81
Arguments against Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles marrying
1. The marriage would not be allowed within the Church of England
Traditionally the Church of England has opposed divorce, holding that marriage is a sacrament marking an indissoluble union between a man and a woman and that the parties involved cannot take a new partner while either of their original spouses lives.
In 2002 the Church of England relaxed its position on divorced couples marrying. It allowed that under certain circumstances such a marriage was possible. The performance of such a marriage ceremony would be at the priest's discretion. Among the issues the priest would need to consider were whether the couple's relationship had caused the previous marriage's breakdown. Where the priest judges that this is the case, the couple cannot be married within the Church.
It has been argued that Charles and Camilla would not have been granted permission to marry within the Church as their affair is generally regarded as having been a major factor contributing to the breakdown of the Prince's first marriage to Diana Spencer.
Another restriction is that the remarriage should not cause hostile public comment. A remarriage in the Church of England between Charles and Camilla is likely to have been denied on these grounds as well. Both the on-going affair between the two and their marriage plans have prompted widespread public criticism.
2. The marriage is inappropriate for the man who will become the titular head of the Church of England
Though the British monarch is essentially only the titular head the Church of England (as the Archbishop of Canterbury is the ecclesiastical head), the role carries significant moral authority.
As the titular head of the Church the monarch is meant to behave in a way which accords with the moral precepts of the Church of England; the conduct of the monarch is meant to be an example for other members of the church. Thus, it is argued, a married monarch should remain faithful to his/her spouse. The behaviour of Charles and Camilla, up to and including their marriage, has been severely criticised by a number of prominent religious spokespeople as falling far short of what would be expected of any devout Anglican, let alone the head of the church.
The former archbishop of Canterbury, publicly warned that the marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs. Parker Bowles, who is divorced, would create a crisis for the church because of the British monarch's role of supreme governor of the Church of England.
The London-based Evangelical Alliance, which claims one million members from various denominations has stated, 'The couple's previous divorces, their documented adultery and the nature of their extramarital relationship up to this point do present difficulties for many of our Anglican members and others with respect to Charles' suitability to govern the Church of England.'
In an editorial published in the British newspaper, The Guardian, on April 9, 2005, it was stated, 'One day, the prince hopes, he will stand in Westminster Abbey and be anointed with holy oil before swearing the 1689 coronation oath to maintain "the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel" and to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England". If he does, the oath will have become a nonsense.'
3. The marriage is likely to encourage the disestablishment of the Church of England
The legal connections between the British monarchy, the British government and the Church of England have generally worked in the church's favour. The Church of England is formally recognised and given a privileged status by the state as the 'established' church of the nation.
The Church of England alone is protected from expressions of contempt for its beliefs. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel limit free speech only when the Church of England is the subject.
The head of state (the monarch) is the titular head of the Church of England and is required to be a member of that church and not marry a Catholic. She or he has the right, which is exercised through the prime minister, to appoint the head of the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior officers of the church.
However, what many view as the long-standing immorality of Charles and Camilla's affair and their current inability to marry within the church has lead to a call for the disestablishment of the Church of England.
There are those who believe that the conduct of Prince Charles has left the Church of England in the unenviable position of having to decide between being led by a man popularly regarded as a long-term adulterer, or forfeiting its privileged position of the established church of the realm.
4. The marriage is likely to undermine the monarchy both in Britain and within the Commonwealth
It has been claimed that Charles' conduct with Camilla Parker Bowles, up to and including their civil marriage, has brought the monarchy into disrepute. A survey conducted in Britain in March 2005 found that two thirds of people said the liaison would harm the monarchy.
It has also been claimed that the difference between the behaviour expected of a monarch and the actual behaviour of Charles and his siblings (Anne and Andrew are also both divorced and Anne has remarried) suggests that the values the monarchy upholds, such as fidelity and respect for marriage vows, are being significantly undermined.
In an editorial published on April 9, 2005, The Guardian newspaper stated, 'The importance of [this wedding] is that it marks a point of irrevocable disjunction between the supposed mysteries of the monarchy and its modern reality ... Those who want the monarchy to be sustainable in the modern world need to grasp that, as from today, the gap between the [ideals] of monarchy and the reality has never been wider or more in need of reform.'
It has also been suggested that not only has the marriage damaged the Monarchy in Britain but also in the Commonwealth. A survey conducted by the Sydney-based paper the Sunday Telegraph noted that 50 percent of female respondents favoured a republic if the alternative were to have King Charles and Queen Camilla as their head of state.
A letter to the editor from Jenny Katauska published in The Weekend Australian on February 12 2005 stated, 'We will now be a heartbeat away from inheriting a royal couple whose whole relationship has been based on hypocrisy and disloyalty.
Camilla refused to marry Charles but carried on an adulterous relationship with him after her marriage to another, then Charles (in line to be head of the Church of England) married and continued the relationship, betraying his wife as well as Camilla's husband ... It's time for a change.'
It has been argued that popular disapproval of the marriage between Charles and Camilla is likely to promote the growth of the republican movement in both Britain and many Commonwealth countries, including Australia.
5. Previous royals have either had to give up their divorced lovers or renounce their royal status
Previous monarchs and other prominent members of the British royal family have had to chose between retaining their position in the line of succession and marrying a divorced person. They were not able, as Charles intends, to marry a divorc‚e, and then either become or remain monarch.
On January 20, 1936, King Edward VIII ascended the throne. It soon became clear that the new King wished to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson, a twice-married American woman who was divorced from her first husband.
Powerful figures in the British government considered marriage to Mrs Simpson impossible for Edward, even if Wallis obtained her second divorce, because he had become de jure head of the Church of England, which prohibited remarriage after divorce.
Edward's proposed solution of a morganatic marriage (one which would have prevented Mrs Simpson acquiring the rights and titles of the monarch) was rejected by the prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, and the Dominion (later Commonwealth) governments.
On November 16, 1936, Edward met with the prime minister and stated that he would marry Wallis Simpson when she became free to do so. The prime minister told the King he had three options: he could give up the idea of marriage; marry Wallis against his minister's wishes; or abdicate.
If Edward had married against the wishes of his ministers, it was likely that the government would have resigned, prompting a constitutional crisis. The prime ministers of the British dominions had also made clear their opposition to the King marrying a divorc‚e. Faced with this opposition, Edward chose to abdicate.
In 1954, two years after her sister, Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, Princess Margaret became embroiled in a public scandal over her affair with Group Captain Peter Townsend, a Royal Air Force pilot and Battle of Britain hero.
Townsend was several years Margaret's senior and divorced, which meant he was viewed as an unsuitable husband for a royal princess. Margaret soon came under heavy pressure not to marry Townsend, with suggestions from the then prime minister that she would lose her title, civil list allowance and place in the line of succession. Taking advice from the Archbishop of Canterbury and senior politicians, Princess Margaret decided not to marry Townsend and made a public announcement, in which she stated her decision was determined out of loyalty to the Crown and her being mindful of her position and responsibilities.
There are those who believe that the only appropriate action for Charles to take, now that he has married Mrs Parker Bowles, is to remove himself from the line of succession. This point has been made by Paul Burrell, former butler to Princess Diana. Burrell has stated, '[Charles'] loyalty to Camilla has come before his loyalty to the monarchy.
I wish him congratulations and much happiness today. But ... in the interests of the British people, and for the sake and future of the monarchy, he must now renounce his right to the throne.'
Arguments in favour of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles marrying
1. The attitude of the Church of England toward the remarriage of divorced people has relaxed
There has been a gradual relaxation in the attitude of the Church of England toward the remarriage of divorced people.
In 1937, the Archbishop of Canterbury abstained from voting on the Matrimonial Causes Act that would extend the grounds for divorce because he believed that the Church could no longer impose a Christian standard on a largely non-Christian population.
However, in 1957 the Upper House of Canterbury Convocation declared that the Anglican marriage service should not be used by anyone who had a former spouse still living. For the remainder of the twentieth century, the Church of England continued to maintain the doctrine that no divorced person could be remarried in church during the lifetime of a former spouse.
The new century has seen a dramatic softening of the church's attitude toward the remarriage of divorced people. On 9 July 2002, the General Synod voted to accept a motion that 'there are exceptional circumstances in which a divorced person may be married in church during the lifetime of a former spouse.'
Though the relaxation of the church's rules has not been used to try to have Charles and Camilla married within the church, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has spoken in favour of their civil union.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he was 'pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step', adding his hopes that the marriage would be 'a source of comfort and strength' to the couple. The Archbishop's formal blessing of the civil marriage has also been seen as representing the church's approval of the marriage.
The Archbishop has said, 'These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England.'
2. Charles' and Camilla's marriage is acceptable to the Queen
It has been noted that under the terms of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 the monarch has the power to prohibit the marriages of other members of the Royal Family. The fact that Charles and Camilla's marriage has been allowed to proceed has been taken as an indication that the Queen supports the union. Clearly, if the Queen were opposed to the marriage she would have been able to use the Royal Marriage Act to prevent it from happening.
After the news of Charles' plans to marry Camilla Parker Bowles the following statement was issued on behalf of the Queen by Buckingham Palace, 'The Duke of Edinburgh and I are very happy that the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles are to marry.'
3. It is better that Charles and Camilla marry than that they continue to live together unmarried
Prince Charles is reported to have stated that his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles is 'non-negotiable'. It has become increasingly clear in the nine years since Princess Diana's death that Princes Charles intends to go on living with Camilla. She has also slowly assumed a higher profile in the Prince's public life.
Given this, there are many who have argued that the marriage is desirable as it serves to regularise a relationship with the potential to be a major embarrassment and an on-going moral concern should the prince become king.
It has been claimed that it would not be appropriate to have a king with no wife but who has instead a 'companion' whom everyone knows is his mistress. There is no protocol to determine how such a person should be treated. In this position Camilla would have had no official title or role. As Duchess of Cornwall and eventually as Princess Consort, rather than Queen Consort, Camilla will be able to be treated officially as the wife of the Prince of Wales and later the King.
In an article titled, 'Charles needs a missus, not a mistress' published in The Daily Telegraph, the writer, Alice Thompson, argues, 'All that shuffling around between houses in Gloucestershire - the plastic bags crammed into the boot of the car - was so furtive and so teenage. It made [Charles] look adolescent. It didn't seem dignified for two 50-year-olds to have to behave in this way.'
There has also been the awkwardness of the Prince behaving in a manner which for many of his subjects is morally unacceptable. A civil marriage, particularly one followed by a church blessing, is regarded by many as significantly better than no marriage at all.
4. Popular attitudes toward Charles and Camilla have softened
Charles and Diana separated in 1992 and in December 1996 the couple's final divorce decree was granted. Through 1997, though popularly vilified as the 'other woman' who had helped to destroy the royal marriage, Camilla began to make tentative steps toward assuming a public profile alongside Charles. However, Diana's death in a car accident in August 1997 signalled a temporary escalation in the public's dislike of Camilla.
Prince Charles then recruited a public relations specialist, Mark Bolland, to improve the public image of Camilla Parker Bowles. Gradually they have been shown attending public functions together, ultimately including those sponsored by The Palace.
In January Charles and Camilla made their first public appearance together at a 50th birthday party at the Ritz Hotel in central London. Later that year Camilla met Prince William and Prince Harry for the first time. On June 3 2000 the Queen recognised the relationship by attending a birthday lunch for King Constantine with Camilla present. Later that month Charles was photographed kissing Camilla in public for the first time. July 2002 saw Camilla's first royal engagement in Edinburgh. In June 2004 Camilla appeared for the first time in the prince's official accounts, indicating that he was meeting many or not all of her living expenses. Finally on February 10, 2005, Clarence House announced that the Prince of Wales and Camilla were to marry. The wedding was originally be held on April 8, 2005. It was ultimately postponed till April 9 because of the funeral of Pope John Paul II.
Over the eight years since Diana's death there has been a gradual softening in the public's attitude toward Camilla. A recent opinion poll for the mass-market British tabloid The Sun showed 40 per cent of respondents approved of a marriage, 36 per cent were against and 24 per cent did not care. This indicates that some 64 per cent of the paper's readership are not opposed to the wedding.
It has also been noted that the longevity of the relationship between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles has impressed many Britons and others. There appears to be a growing popular view that the couple have demonstrated their commitment to each other over decades and so should be allowed to formalise their relationship in marriage.
Australian author Nikki Gemmell, has suggested, 'History will judge Charles' life as a great love story, and by that I don't mean a happy love story; but what narrative of passion is? ... Isn't it time for the grace of forgiveness? For a couple finally marrying, after 30-odd years of wanting to?'
5. Divorce is becoming more accepted for members of the British Royal Family
Divorce has become increasingly a feature of the British Royal Family.
The Queen's sister, Princess Margaret, married photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones (who became the Earl of Snowdon) on May 6, 1960. The couple had two children, a boy and a girl.
In the 1970s, revelations of an affair with Roddy Llewellyn led Margaret to divorce from the Earl of Snowdon, although the marriage was regarded as over long before the affair was made public. This was the first divorce of a senior royal since Princess Victoria of Edinburgh in 1900.
There was significant sympathy for Margaret and the failure of her marriage. It was popularly believed that she should have been able to marry Captain Peter Townsend, a Royal Air Force pilot and Battle of Britain hero, with whom she had fallen in love in 1954. Margaret was strongly dissuaded from marrying Townsend because he was divorced. There are those who consider that the Royal Family, the Church of England and the British Government in discouraging Princess Margaret from marrying a divorced man blighted her life.
The first of the Queen's children to divorce was Princess Anne. Princess Anne married Lieutenant (later Captain) Mark Phillips of The Queen's Dragoon Guards at Westminster Abbey in November 1973. The couple had two children.
The marriage of Princess Anne and Mark Phillips was dissolved in April 1992. In December the same year The Princess Royal married Commander Timothy Laurence, Royal Navy (now Commodore Laurence), at a private ceremony at Crathie Church, near Balmoral Castle in Scotland. The Princess was married within the Church of Scotland because church laws prohibiting the remarriage of divorced couples prevented her remarrying within the Church of England. This made Princess Anne the first member of the British Royal Family to both remarry while her first spouse was still alive and retain her place in the line of succession since Henry VIII.
Despite her second marriage not being able to be performed within the Church of England, the divorce of the Princess Royal and her subsequent remarriage appear to have had little or no impact on the public standing of the Princess Royal and her ability to perform her royal functions. The Princess Royal carries out the most engagements of any member of the Royal Family. After the Queen, she is generally considered the member of the Royal Family held in highest public regard.
Queen Elizabeth's second son, Prince Andrew, was the second of the Queen's children to divorce.
On July 23, 1986 Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson. They assumed the title of Duke and Duchess of York. The couple had two daughters.
In 1992, pictures of the Duchess appeared in the British tabloid press, showing her in compromising positions with her financial advisor. The couple announced their intention to separate on March 19, 1992.
The Duke and Duchess of York divorced in May 1996. The Duke of York was widely seen as the injured party in the divorce. His performance as a husband and family man had impressed the general public, and he is currently one of the more popular members of the British Royal Family.
Though Charles has popularly been seen as significantly at fault in the failure of his first marriage, the general public acceptance of the divorces of each of his siblings and Anne's successful remarriage suggest that popular disapproval of divorce within the Royal Family is reducing.
Further implications
The wedding of Charles and Camilla would appear to represent a significant liberalisation in the attitude of the British monarchy toward divorce. The Prince has indicated that, when King, he might change his title of 'Defender of the Faith' to 'Defender of Faith', to reflect multi-cultural modern Britain.
It may well be that by the time Charles assumes the throne the strong link between the Church of England and the monarchy may have weakened. Certainly, despite the endorsement of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, the fact remains that the man likely to be the next titular head of the Church of England was married in a civil service because his marriage is contrary to the current dictates of the Anglican Church. This is likely to increase the strain in a church already trying to reconcile conflicting attitudes within its ranks on issues such as homosexuality and the ordination of woman. There would appear to be the real possibility that the Church of England will move to disestablish itself. Failing this, there may be one or more splits within the church on the fundamental questions currently being disputed within it.
On the question of the impact Charles' second marriage is likely to have on the future of the monarchy, it seems probable that the institution will survive within Britain. Charles' popularity has slowly grown since the death of his first wife, Diana, and his son, Prince William is extremely popular as a potentially monarch. The institution is a deeply entrenched within British society and culture.
Within Australia is seems probable that in the long term we will decide to become a republic, however, it is likely to be an increased sense of Australian identity rather than the rejection of a particular monarch that would prompt such a change.
Sources
The Age
2/4/05 page 5 (Insight section) analysis by J Button, 'An ode to love'
6/3/05, page 20, editorial, `Our future king? Maybe not'.
25/3/05, Good Weekend Magazine section, page 59, comment (looking at why Camilla is not looked on as favourably by the public as Diana, Princess of Wales was) by Daphne Merkin, `Love, actually'.
The Australian
11/3/05, page 13, comment (photos, incl of Charles and Princess Diana - ref in part to royal family vs republicanism) by Aron Paul, `Captivating marriage of magic and mores'.
2/3/05 page 13 comment by Nicola Roxon, 'Charles, a relic of another era'
23/3/05 page 15 comment by Allison Henry, 'Off with an English head of state'
9/4/05, page 15, news item, `Royal couple to say sorry for "wickedness"'.
The Herald Sun
24/3/05 page 18, editorial, 'God save Australia'
2/4/05 page 29 analysis by B English, 'No royal fairytale this time'
23/03/05, page 8, news item (photo) by L Houlihan, `Camilla for our queen'.
9/4/05, page 29, analysis (photos) by K Knight, `Charlie's angels'.
9/4/04, page 27, analysis (photos, incl of Andrew Parker Bowles) by Kay and Levy, `A perfect gentleman'.