LETTER: A royal marriage

John Riseley
Friday 11 February 2005 01:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Prince Charles' decision to remarry is a snub to the large proportion of British subjects whose main relationship is without marriage. He and Camilla should continue to go where they are welcome as an unmarried couple and be glad of the chance to skip events where they are not. This may mean missing the occasional high-society function, but they probably attend too many of these and too few low-society ones.

Given their past, the suggestion that the effect of their wedding could be to maintain respect for the institution of marriage would seem absurd.

There are many examples of royalty intent upon dignifying a politically problematic relationship with the title of marriage. The list includes Nero, Edward IV and Edward VIII. It has generally been an indication of insecurity and self-absorption and tends to end badly. A monarch needs the confidence to regard the role of his mistress as good enough for anyone.

With the advent of DNA testing marriage is now obsolescent even for royals who are going to have children. For those who aren't it is an irrelevance. How many more generations of expensive divorces can the family afford? The precedent of a long-term unmarried relationship would be a valuable legacy for Charles's sons.

JOHN RISELEY

Farnborough, Hampshire

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in