The Royal sort-of-Wedding (it was to be Friday, but they decided they'd rather conflict with the start of the racing season than with the Pope's funeral) has been confusing for those not steeped in Anglican tradition. Charles and Camilla can't have a church wedding because both are divorced - in particular, divorced, and Camilla's ex is still alive.
Henry VIII founded the church of England because he was not given a divorce from his first wife, right?. So one would be forgiven for thinking that the church of England was in large part created to support divorce.
Turns out that's not the case.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before. (The Anglican Domain: Church History)
It seems from more recent reports that the partner still has to die before the other can remary. So even though Charles's first wife is dead, he can't be married in the church because he divorced Diana.
In the case where one or both parties has been divorced and has a surviving former spouse the legal right to a wedding in a church does not apply.
The final decision as to whether to conduct such a wedding lies solely with the parish priest of the church involved. Some will not do so under any circumstances, while others are prepared to do so, often after referring to the Church in Wales' Guidelines on the matter. Many clergy who will conduct such weddings would not do so for parties who have been married more than once before, or in cases where one party was instrumental in the break-up of the previous marriage of the other party. If a priest agrees to a wedding of a person who has been divorced, he or she has the right to inspect the decree absolute before proceeding.
As ever, before making any assumptions on the matter the parish clergy should be consulted.
From Weddings in the Church
In retrospect this does make historical sense: if the church of england supported divorce, why would Henry have had to have most of his wives condemned to death first as traitors (one wasn't executed; the other outlived him)? The quote doesn't explain the theology of the position, but it does suggest that there's a certain flexibility in whether or not that wedding can be held in a church. That flexibility hasn't been noted with respect to Charles and Camila's wedding. And indeed, some have argued that anything BUT a church wedding is out of the question - or at least not legal - for the heir to the throne. And since the archbishop won't marry him in the church, is the wedding "legal"? The UK govn't says it is. Legal, according to the same govn't/attorney general who said the war in Iraq is legal, too.
Posted by mc at April 9, 2005 02:13 AM