Giok and the guest or guests he's taken on are missing the point with the debate about human rights. The issue in the case of Charles is his position in a church that has traditionally been unaccommodating of divorcees and adulterers. Until very recent times one of the organisations within the Anglican church, the Mothers' Union, treated even the innocent parties in divorces and marital separations like scum. Their prerogative.

Under a strict application of human rights, Catholic priests are obviously as entitled to get married as anyone else. But they accept that they cannot do so while they remain in the priesthood. Some traditionalists have argued that when Charles marries Camilla he should relinquish his claim to the throne That is surely a reasonable argument for such people to advance. And Giok is way off the mark to think this is an infringement of human rights.

It's many years since Charles floated his "defender of faiths" idea, and I would not be surprised if it's quietly forgotten. In the case of his second marriage he has opted for a civil ceremony rather than provoke uproar from the traditional end of the C of E. Moreover he could not become "defender of faiths" without disestablishment of the C of E. That would cause a constitutional upheaval right when the monarchy is going to be at its weakest since pre-Victorian times - ie when QEII dies. Not a good idea, from his point of view.

I said way up the thread that the eschewing of the title "Queen Camilla" may be a shortlived gesture. It looks like this point will get a good airing tonight on BBC TV's flagship current affairs programme Panorama.


OohAah, I know about as much about architecture as his nibs. Since even from your own limited experience you know that not everyone is on mudcat 24/7, your gloating remark - "I notice Peter K has gone all quiet," - was presumably sheer stupidity?