The wedding secret Charles must take to his grave: Legal advice on Camilla marriage sealed until after his death

By Simon Walters and Ian Gallagher

Controversy: Charles and Camilla after their civil ceremony in 2005. Doubts about the legality of the wedding have long persisted


The Government was accused of a cover-up last night after it was ruled that the legal advice that enabled Prince Charles to marry the Duchess of Cornwall must remain secret until after his death.

Doubts about the legality of the wedding have long persisted, with some constitutional experts arguing that legislation prevented the couple from taking part in a civil ceremony.

In the latest development, it was decided to withhold details of the legal advice because of its constitutional ‘sensitivity and significance’. Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked a Freedom of Information request to make public the advice given to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer before he gave the wedding the go-ahead

Now, in a 19-page ruling, the Information Commissioner has refused an appeal against the decision.

The couple married five years ago after Lord Falconer overruled claims that members of the Royal Family were banned from marrying in a register office.

He told The Mail on Sunday at the time that Parliament clearly intended that ‘members of the Royal Family could, if they wished, get married in a civil ceremony’.

Lord Falconer repeated this assurance to Parliament six weeks before the marriage at Windsor Guildhall on April 9, 2005.

But his critics argued at the time that Charles was barred from marrying in a register office by two statutes - the Marriage Act of 1836, which specifically prohibited Royals from marrying in register offices, and the 1949 Marriage Act which, according to every Government until Tony Blair became Prime Minister, left the position unchanged.

Lord Falconer rejected previous views, however, as ‘too cautious’.

Last night campaigning Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said of the new ruling: ‘It is an odd decision. We have a right to know on what basis this is being covered up, as indeed does Prince Charles.’


The couple married five years ago after Lord Falconer overruled claims that members of the Royal Family were banned from marrying in a register office


The Information Commissioner made the ruling after seeing only the Ministry of Justice’s ‘schedule’ of the controversial information. But he acknowledged public interest in the matter and said the issue was a significant one in British constitutional history ‘given that it relates to the legality of the marriage of the heir to the Throne’.

His reference to the ‘the sensitivity and significance’ of the legal advice held by the Justice Ministry will arouse fresh speculation about its contents.

Lord Falconer said he had no doubt about his decision to allow the marriage but the Justice Ministry told the Commissioner the advice he was likely to have received would have contained negative as well as positive views in order to give him a ‘balanced judgment’.

Such advice often discussed the perceived weakness of a Minister’s position, it said.

Lord Falconer’s critics say there was no sign of this in his interview at the time with The Mail on Sunday or his statement to the House of Lords.

Without naming Charles or Camilla, the Commissioner refers to the rights of ‘specific individuals’ as a reason to keep Lord Falconer’s advice secret.

He also accepted the Ministry’s warning that the advice Lord Falconer received was legally ‘live’ when the request to examine the advice was first made two years ago by Michael Jones, the respected political journalist who is researching the relationship between Buckingham Palace and Downing Street for a book.



Flashback: The legality of the wedding was questioned in The Mail On Sunday on February 20, 2005


source: dailymail