De Britse prins Charles is, volgens enkele Britse kranten, in woede uitgebarsten naar aanleiding van de opeenvolgende tegenslagen waarmee hij te kampen krijgt tijdens de voorbereidingen van zijn nakend huwelijk.
"De prins heeft zijn zelfbeheersing verloren", citeerde de Daily Mirror een anonieme bron. Een hofdienaar bevestigde dit in de Daily Mail: "Charles is ziedend van woede. Alles wat mis kon gaan, is misgegaan", luidde het. Ook koningin Elisabeth II, die dinsdag liet weten het burgerlijk huwelijk van haar zoon met Camilla Parker Bowles niet te zullen bijwonen, zou zich behoorlijk ergeren.
Intussen bevestigde Buckingham Palace dat er na de burgerlijke plechtigheid en de kerkelijke zegen een staande receptie volgt, en dus geen groots banket, zoals eerder door verscheidene kranten werd bericht. De Queen had Charles dit namelijk verboden.
Rechtsdeskundigen uitten intussen opnieuw twijfels over de wettelijkheid van het louter burgerlijke huwelijk. De Britse regering weerlegde die twijfel met de verwijzing naar de Europese Mensenrechtenconventie, waarin het huwelijksrecht schriftelijk is vastgelegd
LONDEN - De Britse prins Charles is, volgens enkele Britse kranten, in woede uitgebarsten naar aanleiding van de opeenvolgende tegenslagen waarmee hij te kampen krijgt tijdens de voorbereidingen van zijn huwelijk.
,,De prins heeft zijn zelfbeheersing verloren'', citeerde de Daily Mirror een anonieme bron. Een hofdienaar bevestigde dit in de Daily Mail: ,,Charles is ziedend van woede. Alles wat kon misgaan, is misgegaan''.
Ook koningin Elisabeth II, die eergisteren liet weten dat ze het burgerlijk huwelijk van haar zoon met Camilla Parker Bowles niet zal bijwonen, zou zich behoorlijk ergeren. Om van haar sowieso immer opvliegende echtgenoot, prins Philip, nog maar te zwijgen. Paul Burrell, de ex-butler van wijlen prinses Diana, liet zich ontvallen dat hij ,,de hertog van Edinburgh (Philip) het al zo kon horen zeggen: 'Jij volslagen idioot! Zie nu wat je aangericht hebt!'''.
Trouwen in Las Vegas
Geen enkele krant neemt aan dat de koningin Charles met haar afwezigheid niet voor het hoofd zou willen stoten. De Independent vond die uitleg ongeveer even geloofwaardig als toen Koning Henry VIII na de executie van zijn tweede vrouw, Anne Boleyn, zei dat ,,de onthoofding van zijn vrouw hem niet voor het hoofd stootte''. De krant raadt Charles en Camilla dan ook aan om in ware Elvis-stijl in Las Vegas te trouwen, zonder familie erbij.
Zelfs de sterk monarchistische krant Daily Telegraph had het erover in haar hoofdartikel: ,,Het huwelijk dreigt de monarchie - en geheel Groot-Brittannië - belachelijk te maken''.
Geen groots banket
Intussen bevestigde Buckingham Palace dat er na de burgerlijke plechtigheid en de kerkelijke zegen een staande receptie volgt, en dus geen groots banket, zoals eerder door verscheidene kranten werd aangekondigd. De Queen had Charles dit namelijk verboden. Rechtsdeskundigen uitten intussen opnieuw twijfels over de wettelijkheid van het louter burgerlijke huwelijk. De Britse regering weerlegde die twijfel met de verwijzing naar de Europese Mensenrechtenconventie, waarin het huwelijksrecht schriftelijk is vastgelegd. Als de vraag omtrent de wettelijkheid van het huwelijk daadwerkelijk van dit document afhangt, dan steekt hier toch enige ironie de kop op. Charles hekelde die conventie uit 2002 namelijk in één van zijn protestbrieven aan de regering als zijnde ,,een bedreiging voor de beschaafde samenleving''
PRINCE Charles hurled abuse at advisers as he saw plans for his wedding to Camilla turn into a humiliating shambles, a source disclosed yesterday.
Charles was increasingly irritated at suggestions by constitutional experts that it might be illegal for a royal to marry in a civil ceremony.
But what really enraged him was his advisers' failure to foresee the problems of getting a licence for him to marry at Windsor Castle.
Because such a move would have opened the door for hundreds of other couples to marry at the castle, the prince had to switch the venue to Windsor Town hall. As a result, the Queen and Prince Philip are refusing to attend the ceremony.
The source said: "The prince really lost his temper. He was telling everyone it had turned into a bloody farce." Aides have tried to calm the furious prince by insisting that the controversy will be forgotten.
One said: "When it comes, it will be a good day. The prince will be married in the eyes of the State and the Church. He's looking forward to it."
In an attempt to quell doubts about the legality of the marriage, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer yesterday took the unprecedented step of disclosing Government advice.
The nation's most senior law officer said in a statement: "The Government is satisfied that it is lawful for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the Marriage Act 1949." But Michael Freeman, professor of English law at University College London, said: "On my reading it does not appear that the Royal Family are entitled to get married civilly. It requires a change in the law."
Dr Stephen Creteney, fellow of legal history at All Souls, Oxford, added: "Contrary to the Government's claims, I do not believe the law is clear in any shape. When we are talking about the heir to the throne, it must be unequivocal."
Yesterday Clarence House made light of the deepening crisis. One courtier said: "It is wrong to say the prince is agonising, or hugely worried about it."
Camilla was also said to be "relieved" that leading members of the Royal Family will not be present at her wedding.
An insider said: "It has taken some of the pressure away. She much prefers the idea of just the prince and their children being at the service." A friend added: "It was a case of deciding which would be worse. A furore today or a furore on the day. Neither of them wanted it to be a circus."
Charles entrusted planning of his wedding, including examination of the legal and constitutional implications, to a closed circle of advisers led by his Private Secretary Sir Michael Peat.
Sir Michael was given the task of consulting experts over the legality of the marriage as well as considering possible titles for Camilla.
Legal advice was taken from four sources. But since then the plans have stumbled from one crisis to another. First, the engagement announcement was leaked.
Then eminent lawyers, including former Attorney General Sir Nicholas Lyell, publicly questioned the couple's right to marry in a civil service. Anxious Charles even feared they may be right. Under the original plans the Queen and Prince Philip would have attended the April 8 wedding at Windsor Castle. But neither will be at the town hall ceremony.
It is the first time for 142 years that a British monarch has missed the wedding of one of their children. Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward will also be absent.
Instead the bride and groom will be accompanied by Princes William and Harry - who may be official witnesses - and Camilla's children, Tom and Laura.
Officially, the Queen is staying away because Charles wants the marriage to be low key. But his advisers are well aware it will be interpreted as a snub even though the Queen will attend a church blessing at Windsor Castle.
One report claimed yesterday that when Charles tried to get his mother to help him raise Camilla's public profile some years ago, she told him: "I never want to talk about that woman. I want nothing to do with her."
Experts had pointed to the 1836 Marriage Act, which introduced civil marriage to England and specifically excludes the Royal Family.
It was replaced by the 1949 Act, one section of which states: "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family."
In 1955, then Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir told Princess Margaret it would be unlawful for her to marry divorcee Peter Townsend in a civil ceremony. She abandoned her wedding plans.
But, Lord Falconer said yesterday, the princess was wrongly advised. He declared: "We are aware that different views were taken in the past but we consider these were over-cautious."
The 1949 Act, he said, "does not have the effect of excluding Royal marriages from the scope of Part III, which provides for civil ceremonies". LordFalconer added that under European human rights rules, he was required to interpret the law in a way that would allow people to marry. Sir Nicholas Lyell said he was "disquieted" by the Government advice. He said: "I fear responsible lawyers will still regard the argument as tenuous. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think it wiser to put the matter beyond doubt with a short Bill." Charles and Camilla brushed aside the row and jointly hosted a reception at Clarence House for Australians and New Zealanders working in the UK. Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, a friend of Charles, said: "I am just so thrilled that he looks so happy. I hope that whatever they are planning they will be able to do exactly what they want." Charles is to travel on Sunday to Perth in Western Australia, stopping in tsunami-hit Sri Lanka.
