According to Monsters And Critics, Prince Charles, first in line to the throne of everyone's favorite constitutional monarchy, may not be legally married to Camilla Parker Bowles. The mishugas stems from a little-known 1836 law that prohibits the royal family from partaking in civil ceremonies. The aptly named Marriage Act of 1836 introduced the concept of a civil ceremony to the Empire but for some reason they decided that the royals needed far more pomp and a little more circumstance than the average Nigel.
The law was later strengthened by the Marriage Act of 1949, basically saying there is a separate set of laws for royalty and the great, unwashed masses. Unfortunately for the large-eared one, his wedding was performed in a wedding registry and some inquisitive members of the press want to know why they were denied a chance to cover a big, fancy royal wedding. A reporter named Michael Jones claims conspiracy on the part of Tony Blair and Lord Falconer. Uh, we're not sure what sort of protections the British press corps is allowed, but we would not risk pissing off a guy called Lord Falconer with accusations of impropriety. That's a good way to get end up on the business end of a vigilante's goon hand.
So, all and all, there are 2 things at play here: 1) The royals got to keep some stuff on the down low when the British media wants transparency; and 2) Like California, there are 2 sets of rules governing who can and cannot married. Just for this, we think that Prince Harry and Prince William ought to do a double wedding, make it terribly drab, frumpy and boring and really teach everyone a lesson. Let's get a Marriage Act of 2009 on Parliament's schedule, no more second class citizenship for the House of Windsor.*
*Note: We're sure that there was a very good reason for this law back in the day, maybe to keep the riff-raff out of the royal gene pool. Or perhaps to keep the bastards off of the throne or something.