Who's to blame for fiasco?

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, was today blamed for the royal wedding "cock-up" as fresh questions emerged about the legality of the ceremony.

Historian David Starkey said Lord Falconer, the Government's chief legal adviser to Buckingham Palace, should shoulder responsibility for the chaos. His remarks drag politics firmly into the affair for the first time and throw the spotlight on exactly what ministers had told royal courtiers.

It emerged at the weekend that constitutional experts had real doubts about the legality of the civil ceremony, with the extraordinary possibility that it could be challenged in the courts.

In an attempt to defuse the situation, Lord Falconer revealed his previously secret advice to the Queen and Prince Charles.

The couple were forced to drop plans to marry at Windsor Castle because officials discovered only late in the day that current law would mean the royal residence would have to be open to everyone for civil weddings. Members of the public could also have the right to attend. Lord Falconer, one of four experts consulted by the Queen, advised that the wedding was legal based on the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil ceremonies.

Crucially, he claimed this overturned the 1836 Marriage Act, which banned royals from marrying in such ceremonies. The 1836 Act allowed civil weddings for the first time - but its Section 45 states nothing in it "shall extend to the marriage of any of the royal family".

Lord Falconer claimed the language of the 1949 Act was "clearly intended" to remove that bar and prohibited the royals only from needing to post banns before getting a licence. Other legal experts hotly dispute this, and point out that the later legislation did not repeal Section 45.

The other huge problem for Lord Falconer is that one of his predecessors as Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, decided in the Fifties that the 1836 Act prevented Princess Margaret from marrying Group Capain Peter Townsend, a divorced commoner, in a civil ceremony.

The big legal question is what options are now open to the Government to make the situation watertight. They could, with cross-party support, railroad a short, two-line bill through Parliament, formally repealing the 1836 section in time for 8 April.

The Prime Minister's role appears largely to have been restricted to getting Lord Falconer, his former flatmate, to find the best legal advice on the issue. The Department for Constitutional Affairs today refused to comment on Dr Starkey's criticism and referred all calls to Downing Street and Clarence House.

A Downing Street spokesman said the Government's stance on the legality of the wedding had not changed. "We have said all along that we do not see the need for new legislation. We have given our advice, the Prime Minister played his role. I am not aware there is any role for Number 10 now," he said.

Further complications arise from the fact that the Prince of Wales will become the head of the Church of England when he becomes King.

The hierarchy of the Anglican clergy were plunged into their own mini-crisis when they first learned of the rushed plans for the wedding shortly before the Standard leaked the news.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had, when he was Archbishop of Wales, made clear that he felt adultery was a real obstacle. It appears that it was partly to assuage the church that the civil option followed by a blessing was first decided.