Wedding and monarchy

Experts believe that Prince's civil marriage would not stand the test in a court of law, writes Vijay Dutt.

One cannot talk of anything but about the forthcoming marriage of Prince Charles and his long-time lover Camilla Parker Bowles and the Sudan 1 dye contaminated chilli powder, both of which have kept the country sizzling. Literally.

But while the latter led to the withdrawal of nearly 470 items off the shelves of supermarket chains and corner shops and could cost over £100 million, the Royal wedding has divided the nation. The hot chilli powder cannot kill anyone is clear from the views given by cancer experts. So the matter would subside soon. Only some faces in the Food Standards Agency would remain red because of the likely inquiry as to why the alert about the contaminated products was not sounded earlier. But the conflicting views on the Royal wedding could have a rather lasting effect on the monarchy.

The initial reaction that at last Charles was making Camilla an honest woman by taking her as his wife has been overshadowed by events that threaten to reduce his wedding plans into farce. Constitutional experts believe that his civil marriage would not stand the test in a court of law. And believe you me there are a few who could test the legality by filing a writ. Unless Parliament enacts a new law giving legal sanctity to a civil registered Royal wedding.

The announcement that Queen would not attend the ceremony at the Guildhall Town Hall, particularly after a spate of legal opinion on the legality of the wedding, created further confusion. We were being told in driblets that the Queen had not liked this and that about the arrangements for the wedding, and that after a particularly difficult dinner meeting with his mother, Charles returned to his residence in a state and almost in tears.

It is reported that even for the reception at Windsor Castle, which would be presided over by the Queen, only 700 odd invitations have been issued. For the wedding with Diana over 2000 were sent. But this could be justified on the ground that this would be a second marriage and had to be kept a low-key affair.

But the reason for the Queen not attending the civil ceremony could be more serious. A historian has opined that security could be the cause for her to avoid going to the Town Hall. But it would take her 184 steps (counted by an enthusiastic reporter) and the security in any case would be tight because not only Charles but, his two sons would also be there. Prince Williams is second in line of succession.

The distinguished historian Dr David Starkey possibly found the right reason when he said the Queen was possibly more worried about the institution of the monarchy than concerned about her son's wedding. Does that mean there is a feeling that the marriage could have bad effect on the monarchy and its acceptance in the future?

The pro-Diana groups would no doubt press this point. A fridge magnet saying Remember Diana, I am told is selling very well. One can only say this is ironic. Diana made two important points during her famous interview with BBC on its Panorama programme. One she said her marriage was crowded, there being a third person in it and the other was that the job, that is monarchy was too much for her husband, indicating that her elder son should succeed the Queen.

As events unfold, it is evident that however, Charles and Camilla might try, they would not be able to exorcise the spectre of Diana. She would be now the third person and crowd their marriage. About the second point one cannot say anything definite. But if the slant in the media analysis, the language and feelings expressed in letters to the Editor, views of constitutional and legal experts are any indication, then much would need be done to ensure the monarchy has a future and as much acceptance as it enjoys today with the Queen on the throne.

Diana would have the last laugh if Charles damages, albeit unwittingly, the institution of monarchy. The lat king Farouq of Egypt had famously said after his abdication that ultimately only five Kings would be left in the world, four in the playing cards and one in Britain. No one questioned his prophecy then. But many have started doing it now.

Getting kicks from shoplifting

It's a strange phenomenon. According to Vogue, successful, stylish women with flourishing careers and loaded with money have taken to shoplifting as a way to get their kicks. Possibly this is a much healthier hobby than becoming addicted to cocaine or heroin. But it is also full of risk. Yet one woman, who possibly frequents Harvey Nichols and Tiffany, told the magazine that it (hoplifting) was the only naughty thing she indulged in.

She clarified, " I don't get drunk. I don't take drugs. I eat healthily, I have a personal trainer, I work hard for a living, I pay my taxes, I don't cheat on my husband." Such a dull life she indeed has!

So she justifies, " Maybe I could have an affair instead of shoplifting, but I don't think so. At least this way I'm not going to wonder if the guilt shows on my face when I come home with a stolen lipstick."

In fact, the Home Office has found that shoplifting is one of the few crimes that run the entire social gamut. They come from all walks of life, from rich women stealing designer frocks they could easily afford, to the desperate trying to raise money for drugs.

The designer shops naturally attract better class of shoplifter, not that I suppose they would brag about it or advertise this like many have signs saying By Order of Her Majesty. But the fact that although the total value of goods stolen fell in 2003, the average value of each item taken rose from £ 88 to0 £164. The taste of the shoplifter is going up according to the rate of inflation, one presumes.

Incidentally, a few shoplifters from our homeland who were caught here too were quite well to do or holding high positions. The bug is spreading.

Just a thought

Why is it that while two British dailies could hunt out the dealer suspected of exporting contaminated chilli powder, our own media sleuths did not.