BRITAIN: The Lord Chancellor has said the civil marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles is legal, while a debate rages about Queen Elizabeth's decision not to attend it.
Lord Falconer attempted to quell growing doubts by insisting that the civil ceremony planned for April 8th is in accordance with the 1949 Marriages Act, and that previous interpretations of the laws governing royal marriages had been "over-cautious". Lord Falconer also invoked the European Convention, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 2000, which requires legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination.
If left unchallenged, Lord Falconer's opinion will be a relief to Prince Charles, whose own various legal advisers originally failed to realise that the couple's first choice of venue for their marriage - Windsor Castle - was not registered for the purpose.
In Britain yesterday, however, the talk was less about the prince's human right to marry than about his mother's exercise of her right not to witness it.
Clarence House echoed Buckingham Palace's insistence that there was "no snub" intended by the queen's decision to skip the civil ceremony in Windsor Guildhall and only attend the subsequent service of dedication at St George's Chapel, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will preside.
Asked if he viewed his mother's absence as a snub, a spokesman for the Prince of Wales insisted: "No, they've discussed it and the prince is happy with the arrangements. The wedding will be blessed in front of family and friends. There will be a lovely reception afterwards. The civil ceremony was always meant to be low key."
This was in line with Buckingham Palace's assertion that the decision had been taken because Queen Elizabeth was aware that the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles wanted to keep the occasion low key.
"Clearly if the queen were to attend the occasion would no longer, by definition, be low key," a palace spokesman said on Tuesday night.
However, this failed to impress royal watchers who regarded the decision as the latest episode in "a catalogue of cock-ups" since the announcement of the wedding just two weeks ago. Nor did it do anything to restrain headline writers who had a field day with the "bombshell" announcement. If "Queen's rebuff crowns matrimonial shambles" was hardly surprising from the Guardian, the loyal Daily Telegraph also appeared in no doubt: "Queen snubs Charles wedding." The Sun, meanwhile, quipped "The Lady's not for turning up", while detecting a "final snub for bride Camilla". And in its editorial, the newspaper captured the widespread disbelief that greeted the announcement.
Whatever Charles and Camilla had in mind for a low key affair - to be attended by some 700 guests - they surely never envisaged that the queen and Prince Philip would not be there. There had been reports last week that the queen was horrified by the prospect of the heir to the throne marrying, in effect, in a town hall, and considered the arrangement "common".
"Despite all the Palace assurances that she is following the bride and groom's wishes by not being there, many people will interpret her absence as a sign of disapproval," the Sun said.
As constitutional historian Dr David Starkey observed: "We are into unknown territories with this decision and one can only speculate on the reason why."
Former palace spokesman Dickie Arbiter offered the most benign explanation, suggesting that the blessing by the archbishop was the thing that mattered most to the Queen, a woman of deep faith.
However, she is also known to put her duty to the monarchy before all else, and it is this which will incline people to second-guess a decision which is bound to distress her eldest son and heir. The prince must have hoped and prayed that his marriage could be a time of healing.
By mismanagement if nothing else, the royal family is instead helping ensure it is the cause of increasing division and debate.