Heritage

Why Meghan and Harry Are Getting Married in a Church-But Charles and Camilla Didn't

It's complicated.
IMAGE GETTY IMAGES
Comments

In another era, Prince Harry marrying Meghan Markle would have been a scandal so large it would shake the British monarchy to its core. The bride-to-be is an American, a divorcée, and she also attended a Catholic school as a child—comparisons to Wallis Simpson and the Abdication aren't without their logic.

But since it’s 2018, the royal wedding will take place in just a matter of weeks with the Queen’s blessing, in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle no less.

That’s a striking difference from Harry’s father Prince Charles's own wedding. The Prince of Wales married Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 in a civil ceremony at the Windsor Guildhall, then received a church blessing at the chapel afterward. Like Markle, Camilla is a divorcée (she was married to a Catholic), but back then the wedding venue was an issue, and this time it isn’t.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

So what’s the difference? 


Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, after their civil wedding ceremony.

Quite a bit, according to Duncan Larcombe, the author of Prince Harry: The Inside Story—but it doesn't actually have much to do with divorce. “I think it is just a reflection that time’s moved on, things have changed,” Larcombe tells Town & Country. “As a general rule the royal family tend to be about 25 years behind the rest of society.”

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

A century ago, Edward VIII had to give up the throne in order to marry a divorcée, but society has a much different view of divorce today. It's no longer a major scandal. After all, Charles was divorced too, as are two of his three siblings.

The Church of England allows, in special circumstances, for people to remarry in the church even if their former spouse is still living (hence Meghan and Harry's choice of venue), a decision that is left up to the individual priest. Of course, Prince Charles's second marriage also received an endorsement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the New York Times reported. Yet he still chose to marry in a civil ceremony, which suggests there was another issue at play here: optics.

While Camilla's popularity has increased in recent years, according to the Sunday Times, as of August of 2017, "two thirds of Britons did not think she should be queen, and only 19 percent thought she was fit for the role."

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

The British public still hasn't forgotten the part Camilla played in Charles and Diana's divorce, and it's possible the palace thought people wouldn't look kindly on a big church wedding.

“To be honest, they could get married in Shrek outfits on pogo sticks, and I think the public would still just cheer and be happy.”

In contrast, people around the world are enamored by Markle and are curious to learn more, and Prince Harry is an incredibly popular royal. “At the moment they’re riding an absolute crest of public affection,” Larcombe says of the soon-to-be newlyweds. “To be honest, they could get married in Shrek outfits on pogo sticks, and I think the public would still just cheer and be happy.”

Charles and Camilla reportedly opted for a civil ceremony to keep things "low-key," or as low-key as a royal wedding can possibly be. At first, they wanted the civil ceremony to be held at Windsor Castle, but it was later moved to Windsor Guildhall because if they licensed the castle for wedding ceremonies, the private residence would have to be open to members of the public to get married there for three years.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

The Queen was not present at Charles and Camilla's Guildhall wedding, but she did attend the prayer ceremony and reception afterward. According to unnamed sources, the Queen felt her duty as the head of the church came before her role as Charles's mother, and therefore she couldn't attend a civil wedding ceremony. "The venue was never the issue for the Queen," a senior royal aide told The Telegraph. "The civil nature of the service is the issue. She did not feel it was appropriate for her to attend."

Ultimately, adds Katie Nicholl, author of Harry: Life, Loss, and Love, Prince Charles is the heir apparent to the throne, which puts him under a level of scrutiny that Prince Harry simply doesn't face. "[Harry] is not the heir to the throne, he’s soon to be sixth in line, and that is the fundamental difference, really. It is a different scenario."

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

This story originally appeared on Townandcountrymag.com.
* Minor edits have been made by the Townandcountry.ph editors.

Comments
About The Author
Megan Friedman
View Other Articles From Megan Friedman
Comments
Latest Stories
 
Share
The College Board hopes to measure students' "resourcefulness to overcome challenges and achieve more with less."
 
Share
The Queen made a glorious appearance in bright pink.
 
Share
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge took the children to see the garden Kate designed at the Chelsea Flower Show.
 
Share
T&C’s experts weigh in on the women of Westeros and their not-so-subtle accessories.
 
Share
The true legacy of Nick Joaquin lies not in the volume or richness or brilliance of his works, but in the optimism in the Filipino.
 
Share
The things we hold dearest in the Truly Rich World are now taking a backseat to softer values such as mindfulness, flexibility, passion, inner peace, and rest.
 
Share
Only 15 cities account for over 30 percent of the world's billionaire population.
 
Share
During the 17th to 19th centuries, the Chinese survived a ruthless persecution by the Spaniards, and still emerged as crucial economic assets in the Philippines.
Load More Articles
CONNECT WITH US