Talk:Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles

message: Royalty from European countries, no doubt, but not from Commonwealth countries. The Windsors are all we have apart from perhaps the nominal king of Malaysia, who is simply one of the sultans of the Malay states on a rotating basis. Or did the king of Swaziland attend? Or Tonga? They would seem rather few in number and lacking in subjects to merit a generalisation "royalty from the Commonwealth," surely. Masalai 03:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guests

message: Is this image of the marriage certificate of interest?
James F. (talk) 01:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Intersting, Charles didn't use any surname and Camilla signed her name with Parker Bowles.  Wallis Simpson had to resume her maiden name briefly.  Any particular reason why it asks for their fathers' names and occupations but not their mothers? (Alphaboi867 03:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexism - women didn't have jobs when these forms were designed.  Mother's occupations never used to be on birth certificates, either.  Am amused by the idea that "Prince of the United Kingdom" is a "rank or profession" though.  I guess "unemployed" would have been more appropriate.  Morwen - Talk 07:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage Certificate, Titles, etc.

message: I know I have to 'be bold' in updating pages, but since I'm not 200% sure, I'll just ask here:
It should be 'Rowan Atkinson' instead of 'Akinson', right?
If you can confirm that it was indeed the Mr.Bean/Blackadder actor who was there, please correct it... Thanks! Michaël 00:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I saw Rowan Atkinson in that church. I also remember that Russian woman who sang a tune like the one in the "Hunt for the Red October". The daughters of the Duke of York said something to each-other. Maybe they were trying to find handsome men that they were not related to? The next thing on TV was the Royal Ascot. One would think that was the real topic that everyone (including these two girls) were thinking of. To make the wedding seem interesting, yes he was.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkinson 

message: "As a result of the wedding, Camilla replaced HRH The Countess of Wessex as the highest-ranked female member of the Royal Family after Queen Elizabeth II" I thought it would be Princess Beatrice or Princess Anne, however you want to rank. --Kvasir 02:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What?? 

message: Shouldn't there be a comma after the word Wales? Shouldn't the title of the article be Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles? Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles, Prince of Wales should be read and considered to be one self-contained unit. Seven Letters 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the case with Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer. It also contradicts what is said in WP:COPYEDIT, Common edits, bullet point 7. 95.209.28.198 (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surtsicna is quite right. I've moved the page accordingly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this article 

message: I might be wrong, but didn't Greece abolish their monarchy in 1973? GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Constantine II & Queen Anne Marie of the Hellenes? 

message: I have deleted references to the 1936 abdication of Edward VIII; the relevance is questionable due to the fact that a church remarriage was impossible in 1936 but became possible in 2002; also the significant groundswell of negative public opinion against the marriage experienced in 1936 was largely absent in 2005
Clivemacd (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1936 Abdication 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wedding of Prince Albert, Duke of York, and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 22:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: In the section headed “Questioning a civil royal wedding”, insert, after the paragraph ending “beyond doubt”, and before the paragraph beginning “eleven objections”, the following paragraph:
House of Commons Library Standard note SN/PC/03417, “Royal Marriages - Constitutional Issues” paragraph 4.2 describes Lord Falconer’s arguments as “breezy” and details widespread criticism: the former Attorney General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) and the then Shadow Attorney General (Dominic Grieve) were unconvinced by Lord Falconer’s arguments and called for legislation; Lord Falconer’s senior officials admitted that Lord Falconer’s opinion might not hold up in court; and David Pannick QC (now Baron Pannick) gave legal arguments refuting Lord Falconer’s claims. Robert Blackburn QC, Professor of Constitutional law at Kings College, says that Lord Falconer’s opinion flew in the face of any conventional reading of the statute book, and flew in the face of standard legal text books.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03417/SN03417.pdf Bethyoung1729 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: This is a prime example of a WP:PRIMARY source. Unless this House of Commons debate was reported in secondary sources such as newspapers, or if there are articles about the topic in academic publication, it doesn't go in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All House of Commons debates are fully reported in the Official Report (Hansard).   Please explain why you consider this less reliable than newspaper reports, often penned by the "Parliamentary sketchwriter" whose job is to satirise the proceedings.   Bethyoung1729's source is not a primary source because it links to articles about the topic in academic publication:
* Robert Blackburn's book King and Country
* Papers by Stephen Cretney (note that the Registrar General's powers are limited to authorising the issue of a superintendent registrar's certificate - the question of whether an alleged marriage is valid is a matter for the court)
* The 1956 advice to the Lord Chancellor
* The 1964 advice by the Home Office
 you are free to insert your proposed text as the protection has expired. 89.240.113.133 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021 

message: I know there was no extra bank holiday for this wedding but was the possibility ever mentioned? --Jameboy (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Lack of) public holiday