Sir, It is regrettable that the forthcoming marriage of the Prince of Wales (letters, February 26, etc) should continue to generate more mischievous obstruction than generosity and goodwill.

It has been declared that there is no problem in respect of statute law. That the Prince appears destined to become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is only a problem to those seeking problems; the Queen does not govern the Church any more than she governs the country. As the requisite licence, registration and marriage certificate are not attributes of the Church it should not matter if the proposed civil and religious ceremonies are separate.

Manifest difficulties would, however, arise if the Prince were to be married in a public venue. Are we seriously to believe that it is beyond the wit and capacity of the authorities to enable both parts of the ceremony to take place in Windsor Castle without consequential problems? Yours truly,

N. M. SUTHERLAND,
7 St Paul’s Gardens,
Chichester PO19 3BA.
March 1.

From the Reverend John Foster

Sir, When I was Vicar of St Mary’s, Paddington Green, I conducted there, more than 20 years ago, the marriages of two of George III’s descendants, sons of the Earl of Harewood. On both occasions, I was informed that the Queen had given her permission, as required by the Royal Marriages Act, and the Privy Council its consent.

The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a special licence which gave me permission to marry both couples “at any time and in any place”.

I asked the Archbishop’s registrar if this meant I could marry them at midnight in a coal cellar. He replied that it meant exactly that.

Yours sincerely,
JOHN FOSTER,
18 Trafalgar Road, Bath BA1 4EW.
March 1.

Explore Letters

• Feedback