What are the implications of the marriage for the future of the monarchy? Should Charles be king? Does it impact on the constitution?

The announcement is a decisive moment in the history of the monarchy, and Professor Tomkins, from the Faculty of Law, is available to discuss the implications.

Professor Adam Tomkins

Law Expertise: Constitutional law, constitutional history, law and politics mobile: 07963 985698 email: a.tomkins@law.gla.ac.uk

Professor Adam Tomkins from the University of Glasgow, said: 'The marriage has no particular constitutional implications for the UK. The legal position is that the Westminster Parliament may determine both the terms and conditions according to which the monarch must rule, as it may determine the very identity of the monarch him- or herself. However, the practice for at least the last century has been that the Prime Minister and cabinet of the day have led (indeed, effectively controlled) Parliament's policy on the monarchy. The Scottish parliament has no legal competence to legislate on matters affecting the Crown or the constitution.'

'The real issue for the UK and beyond is the murkiness of Royal money, not the remarriage of the Prince of Wales. Royal finances are exceptionally murky for the simple reason that it has never been clearly outlined what belongs to the nation (and is held by the Crown on trust), and what belongs to the royal family in a private capacity. We would be better advised to focus on the issues of royal expenditure (and continuing tax avoidance), which the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee is currently investigating, rather than worrying about weddings.'

'Beyond that issue lies the power that the prime minister and government may wield in the Crown's name. Declaring war, manipulating the civil service, interfering with criminal evidence, etc. These are the real dangers of Crown power.'

First published: 10 February 2005