Poor Prince Charles. Married the wrong woman, then can’t seem to legally marry the right one. The Marriage Act 1836 which created civil weddings stated that “it shall not extend to marriage of any member of the Royal Family.” The Marriage Act 1949 had a similar exclusion clause: “nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family.”
The government of course no longer troubles itself about concepts of legality. Not when Tony can simply wheel out one of his mates, who can be guaranteed to interpret the law in his favour.
Embarrassing and unsightly war to cover up? Constitutionally tricky marriage? No problem Sir, but the hourly rate will of course be double on account of the work being complex and y’know … last minute.
Arguments about the validity of the marriage stem from Article 12 of the Human Rights Act, right to marry, and Article 14, the right to exercise the rights contained in the Act without discrimination. There is a requirement to interpret all legislation in a manner that is compatible with the Human Rights Act.
Shame for Charles then that both Labour and Conservatives have recently called for the abolition of the Human Rights Act on the basis that it provides too many rights for illegal immigrants..
Surely extending the Marriage Act 1949 to cover the Royal Family is legislative rather than interpretation.
But extending the Marriage Act would have required an amendment to the Act to be passed by Parliament, entirely possible, and in all liklihood, uncontroversial, but lengthy. Much quicker to interpret the existing legislation in a manner said to be compatible with the Human Rights Act.
Much quicker, maybe, but constitutionally valid? Not even Lord Denning (as I read him) would have interferred to that extent- the act quite clearly states that civil partnerships do not apply to the crown, that was obviously the intention of parliament at the time, hence an ammendment by parliament would be prefered. (Not that i’m trying to pick myself a fight with a qualified solicitor…. runs away scared).
Hi Martin, I entirely agree with you, I was trying to be ironic. Um. The Marriage Act is clear. Whilst it is correct principle that existing legislation should be interpreted to be compatible with the Human Rights Act, an Act cannot properly be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what is stated. Parliamentary amendment is required.
Oh and Martin.. Be afraid, be very afraid