Three objections to wedding
2005-03-01 08:04
London - At least three objections have been lodged against the wedding between Britain's Prince Charles and longtime mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles in the latest hiccup to their plans, a newspaper said on Tuesday.
The legal complaints, or caveats, were delivered to the head of the registrar office in Cirencester, Gloucestershire, southwest England, which covers Charles's countryside retreat of Highgrove, the Daily Mail reported.
If they provide a convincing argument, any one of the documents could prevent the two divorcees from holding a civil marriage ceremony in Windsor, just outside London, on April 8, it said.
Objections
"I can confirm that at least three objections have been received by the Cirencester office and I have been copied the one lodged by (outspoken Church of England reverend Paul) Williamson," Diane Waddington, registrar for Chippenham in Wiltshire, told the daily.
Parker Bowles, 57, has informed Chippenham of her plans to wed.
Under British law, each objection must be considered on its own merit and, if necessary, advice can be taken from the Registrar General of England and Wales, Len Cook, and his legal team.
It will be up to the local office, however, to inform Charles, 56, and Camilla whether their wedding can go ahead as planned.
Questions over the legality of the marriage between Britain's heir to the throne, currently on a trip to Australia, and Parker Bowles have been swirling in Britain since their sudden engagement announcement in February.
Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer, the country's top legal authority, last week issued a statement explaining why he believed the union to be legal.
The Daily Mail, however, reported that six senior lawyers - all staunchly traditional in their views - were said to be planning to lodge their opposition and even might be prepared to go to court over the issue.
The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair was apparently drawing up emergency legislation to erase any doubt over the matter, the newspaper said, while adding that it was doubtful whether an attempt to rush through such a law would be made so close to a general election.