[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Putting in my 2p again

[Kathryn]

Lynn:
 
I thought I read that there is some law from back in the 1800s that states
that a royal must be married in the church and that a civil ceremony for a
royal is not legal.  While Princess Margaret did this, her marriage had no
real impact on life in Britain so there was no discussion about it then. 
However, with the upcoming marriage, it will make an impact and it appears
the legal scholars are lining up on the side of the marriage not being legal
according to the law.
 

 K

You did read that. It's one of the main reasons why Margaret couldn't marry
her 'true love' back in the fifties and ended up settling for someone else(who she later divorced), but the Attorney-General (is that the correct term
 the same government lawyer who produced three different opinions on the
legality of invading Iraq anyway) has decided that actually his predecessors
were just being conservative and the law doesn't mean that at all (although
he may have a different opinion next week you never know) and besides the
Human Rights Act apparently trumps that and would make the marriage legal (I
wonder if it would affect the thing about Royals marrying Catholics?). I was
under the impression that the Human Rights Act wouldn't supercede the
Marriage Act until and unless someone had taken the case to court and got a
judge to rule on it, but apparently I'm wrong.

K 
 
 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]