According to Monsters And Critics [1], Prince Charles [2], 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 [3] 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 [4] and Prince William [5] 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.

Photos: Splash