Maybe they should have eloped.
You have to think that prospect has crossed the mind of bonnie Prince Charles a time or two in the weeks leading up to Saturday’s marriage finally — to Camilla Parker Bowles.
From changes of venue and dates to his own mother, the queen, taking a pass on the official ceremony, this surely has been the most star-crossed royal wedding in English history since Henry VIII took any of his six brides.
And as for the lingering Diana matter, let’s present the new bridal pair with a clean slate as our wedding gift.
More Top Picks Best Heavy Duty Floor Mats For Trucks
We may be the only ones willing to do so, judging by the British press, not exactly known for playing it down the middle when it comes to covering the Royal Family. Since early February when the marriage was first announced, British newspapers have chronicled every development in the Charles and Camilla Situation, giving the rest of us a window into British hearts and minds as interpreted by Fleet Street. See timeline below:
Feb. 11
Daily Telegraph: ‘Castle ready for another day of pomp and profits’
“Windsor has an appetite for royal occasions, and yesterday its people were deciding how best celebrate a civil marriage between a divorced Prince of Wales and his divorced bride. However, its hotels were certain that whatever was done, it was worth putting prices up. To book a night either side of the big day at Ye Harte and Garter Hotel in a room overlooking the castle will cost 2,000 pounds, including breakfast. It would usually cost 190 pounds per night.”
Feb. 12
The Mirror: ‘Don’t do it! Exclusive! 8 in 10 Against The Wedding; 9 in 10 Say He Can’t Be King’
Reporters Jane Kerr and Megan Lloyd Davis said The Mirror’s poll dealt the wedding plans “a huge blow,” adding: “The backlash will shock Charles and his advisers, who had hoped the public would accept Camilla as his wife.”
Feb. 15
Daily Telegraph: ‘Civil marriage will be legal, say prince’s aides’
The newspaper cast doubt whether a civil ceremony was legal because of the Marriage Act of 1836, which allowed non-religious marriages to be conducted for the first time in England except, according to Section 45, those involving members of the royal family.
“If there is any real doubt about the position,” said the story, “it could be corrected by legislation after the royal wedding. A new Act could be used to resolve any concerns over whether Mrs. Parker Bowles would become Queen on her husband’s accession. Further legislation will be needed then in any event.”
Feb. 18
Daily Telegraph: `Charles cannot marry at Windsor Castle’
The wedding cannot take place in Windsor Castle, this story said, because it does not possess a license for hosting civil ceremonies. The ceremony will be shifted to Guildhall in Windsor, which does have a license, and the union will be blessed after that in St. George’s Chapel on the castle grounds. There was time to obtain a license for the castle, but there was concern, according to the account, that “members of the public might also be permitted to wed there.” No attribution on the quote.
Feb. 23
Daily Telegraph: `Queen “snubs” Charles wedding’
The Daily Telegraph, in reporting Queen Elizabeth’s announcement that she will not attend the civil portion of the ceremony to keep the proceedings low-key, says: “The announcement is a further blow to the prince who has seen his wedding plans for April 8 [later changed to April 9] fall apart. It [her absence] will be interpreted by many as a snub.”
Feb. 24
Daily Telegraph: `Prince’s wedding saved by Human Rights Act’
“The Government yesterday tried to defuse the row over the Prince of Wales’s marriage by making public the legal advice it gave to the Queen that a civil wedding would be lawful. In the face of challenges that it would be invalid, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, told Parliament that the ceremony was in accordance with `part III of the Marriage Act 1949′ and was supported by the Human Rights Act.”
Guardian: `Royal wedding: Too common or too farcical — why won’t the Queen attend?’ Sandra Laville, on the queen bypassing the wedding: “Many brides might harbour a secret desire to keep their mother-in-law away from the big day, but the Queen’s decision not to attend her son’s wedding has left the royal family looking divided and somewhat dysfunctional.
“After all, April 8 was chosen because there was a rare window in Her Majesty’s diary. The carefully choreographed introduction of Camilla Parker Bowles as the prince’s official consort appeared to have smoothed over the controversy about the relationship and displayed in Prince Charles a determination that duty should come before desire.”
Feb. 25
Daily Mail: `A wedding gift for the republicans?’
Steve Doughty, writing for the newspaper, labeled the “shambolic handling of the wedding arrangements” an encouragement to republicans (anti-monarchists) and “dismaying” to royal supporters. He added: “The fiasco has also threatened the role of the monarch as head of the Commonwealth. Officials acknowledged yesterday that Charles no longer is guaranteed to succeed his mother at the helm of the organization she has tried to nurture.”
Daily Mail: `There’ll be no wedding feast, Charles. You’re having a buffet’
” . . . the Queen has laid down the law over Prince Charles’ wedding plans in favor of a modest finger buffet. While it is unlikely to feature cocktail sausages and Scotch eggs, the idea that the heir to the throne would have anything less than a sit-down banquet is a remarkable break with protocol.”
Feb. 27
The Express: `Falconer Should Resign Over Wedding Fiasco’
This called for the head of Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer, a friend of Prime Minister Tony Blair, for initially advising the wedding be in Windsor Castle. The switch to Windsor Guildhall raised legal questions over Prince Charles getting married in a civil ceremony.
“What a fiasco,” wrote Robert Kilroy-Silk. “The Royal Family have had to resort, like some gypsy or asylum seeker, to seeking the protection of the Human Rights Act and assert its primacy over English law. No wonder poor Camilla feels battered, hurt, and deeply humiliated.”
Sunday Telegraph: `Queen “thinks Charles has put gratification before duty”‘
In the Sunday Telegraph, chief reporter Andrew Alderson, using unnamed royal courtiers, reports Queen Elizabeth, out of her long-standing concern over Charles’ relationship with Camilla, has distanced herself from the wedding.
March 7
Daily Telegraph: `Queen’s early gift to Charles and Camilla: wedding stamps’
“The Queen has agreed to a set of stamps to commemorate the wedding of the prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles. The couple are said to be `delighted’ and the designs will be released next month.”
March 8
Daily Mail: `Charles ditches Diana’s ring’
The newspaper reported Prince Charles, 24 years after it was first slipped on his finger, stopped wearing the wedding ring given to him by Princess Diana shortly after the announcement last month of his wedding to Camilla.
March 12
More Top Picks Zerowater 10 Cup Pitcher
Daily Mail: `One is so bored’
“The Queen has said she is `absolutely bored with the entire matter’ of her son’s wedding, the Daily Mail can reveal. Her withering assessment will be a bitter blow for Prince Charles as he and Camilla Parker Bowles struggle to keep their shambolic nuptials on course.
“The comments came as it emerged that crucial parts of the wedding arrangements have not been finalized and the couple have not even booked a registrar. With the big day less than a month away, there are no seating plans or order of service for the wedding blessing, only one hymn has been chosen, and the choir has not started rehearsing.”
March 20
Sunday Mirror: `Di’s Brother Snubs Charles Wedding Invite’
“Earl Spencer has turned down an invite to Prince Charles’ wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles . . . a palace [unnamed] source said: “Charles saw the invitation as an olive branch to the Spencers. However, no one actually expected the Earl to accept, and there is great relief that he has turned it down.”
March 25
Daily Star: `Mr. Bean at Royal Wedding . . . ; And You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any More Comical’
The guest list includes comedian Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean), fellow Blackadder comic star Stephen Fry, and female impersonator Barry Humphries, also known as Dame Edna Everage, this story said. They are friends of Prince Charles. “They’ll sip champagne with royals and aristocrats that include the Duke of Wellington, Prince Felipe of Spain, and Lord Rothschild,” noted the Star.
March 26
Daily Mail: `Wedding backlash’
The newspaper’s polling says 65 percent of his subjects believe the marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles will weaken the monarchy, up from 49 percent six weeks earlier.
March 27
Mail on Sunday: `Charles “must say sorry” to Camilla’s ex-husband’
The Bishop of Salisbury, David Stancliffe, says church rules indicate Prince Charles must atone for adultery in prayers of penitence at the prayer service following their civil ceremony, according to the story. “Preparation for the formal expression of such prayers includes the making good of any hurts, the restoration of relationships and serious attention being paid to relationships fractured or damaged by misconduct,” said the bishop.
March 28
Daily Express: `No Prenup Because This Time It’s Going to Last, Says Charles’
Quoting an unnamed friend of Prince Charles, the newspaper reported: “Charles is adamant that there should be no prenuptial agreement. He feels the marriage has to be based from the start on trust and good faith.” The newspaper said he is doing this despite being “taken to the cleaners” in his divorce from Princess Diana.
April 3
Mail on Sunday: `Camilla WILL be Princess of Wales’
Jonathan Oliver on Camilla’s title: “Friends of Charles have said he longs to elevate Camilla from her position as a `second-class Royal.’ But in the minds of many, the title of Princess of Wales is still inextricably linked with Diana seven years after her death.”
Mail on Sunday: `So how will you feel when Queen Camilla is waving at you from the Buckingham Palace balcony?’
The Mail’s Patrick Jephson writes the same day: “Why has he done it? Why does our next head of state seem to care so little that his romantic requirements have made us an international laughing stock? Perhaps it’s love, `whatever love is’ as he notoriously philosophised to the apprehensive Diana Spencer during their engagement broadcast.”
April 4
Daily Mail: `Couples who suddenly share Charles’s big day’
Three other couples are scheduled to be married Saturday in Windsor’s Guildhall, the day Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles had to move to because of the papal funeral. “The last thing I want is millions of onlookers hanging around the place, let alone the world’s media watching,” Nadine Hopkins, one of the brides-to-be, told the Daily Mail.
The Sun: `Switch hits royal coins’
Special commemorative coins, noting the original April 8 wedding date, had to be “remodelled” with the switch in days to accommodate Pope John Paul II’s funeral. A brisk business in all memorabilia with the wrong date is reported.
April 5
Daily Mail: `What took him so long?’
Richard Kay, on the switch to a Saturday wedding: “Aides were appalled at the prospect of pictures of a smiling Charles and Camilla emerging from the Guildhall within hours of the Pope’s funeral. For the next 24 hours, royal aides at the two palaces were at loggerheads as the prince continued his Swiss holiday. But by yesterday his plans had become untenable.”
The Mirror: `Why Me?’
Without identifying one source, this story said: “Grumpy Prince Charles wailed in despair `Why me? Why me?’ when forced to postpone his wedding to Camilla, it was revealed last night. The Prince was said to be `furious’ after learning he had to represent the Queen at the Pope’s funeral in Rome on Friday, only hours before he planned to marry.” The story did say Charles agreed postponing the wedding was “the right thing” to do.
The Independent: `Delay Was Our Decision, Insist Royal Couple’
Responding to newspaper stories, representatives of Tony Blair, who faces an election next month, denied they leaned on Prince Charles to postpone his wedding for a day to prevent the prime minister from having to make a choice over which event to attend. The story called the dilemma “a crisis.”
Daily Express: `Now Gypsies Will Wreck Honeymoon’
Saying the honeymoon is “in chaos,” the Express reported the seclusion of the Scottish Highlands where Charles had hoped to go after the wedding has been disrupted by travelers illegally pitching camps along the road leading to Balmoral, the queen’s estate.
Liverpool Daily Post: `Betting Opens on Next Calamity for Royal Wedding’
Some bets being taken, according to the story, are: at 33-1 odds Camilla will stand up Charles; 40-1 the prince will stand up Camilla; 100-1 there will be a last-minute ultimatum from the queen threatening to disinherit her son if the marriage goes ahead; and 25-1 Prince William will lose the rings. The odds that aliens will land in Windsor Saturday has been set at 10,000-1.