Operation Golden Orb and the battle to make Camilla Queen: CHRISTOPHER WILSON explains why Charles's coronation will be one of the trickiest state occasions for decades 

• e-mail

Will Charles get his way and get two thrones on the big day? And if not, why not?

Everyone seems to agree that last week’s royal tour to Canada was a roaring success. Not only did William and Kate conduct themselves impeccably, with good humour and warmth, but their two children became an instant hit on the global stage.

Prince George and his sister Charlotte produced enchanting images as they blew bubbles and tottered around at social gatherings, underscoring the fact that — as the Queen enters her tenth decade, the future of the Royal Family is in good hands.

But if the Windsors are in rude health, there is one cloud on the horizon — and it is the highly sensitive subject of Prince Charles’s coronation.

Operating under the codename Golden Orb, a group of Establishment grandees is secretly planning what will be one of the trickiest State occasions for decades.

Of course, while his mother, the Queen, remains in good health, it is insensitive to discuss such forward planning for what will be a major landmark in British history. But, nevertheless, it is imperative that detailed preparation is done well in advance.

Inevitably, on the agenda for members of this committee are niggling details such as whether Charles III should be described as ‘defender of faith’ (something that, in today’s multi-faith UK, Charles himself would prefer) rather than ‘defender of the faith’, and who will be on the guest list.

On the agenda for members of this committee are niggling details such as whether Charles III should be described as ‘defender of faith’

But there’s another — more intriguing —issue: one throne, or two?

For, unlike any previous coronation in British royalty’s 1,000-year history, there are awkward questions about whether the sovereign’s wife will sit next to him when he is crowned — and whether she herself will have a crown placed upon her head, too.

Because from the day Charles is proclaimed king, there may be a forceful public challenge to the legality of his marriage to Camilla and which could involve calls for her not to be crowned queen.

Interestingly, I’m told Charles himself has no say in the organisation of his coronation, even though he appointed a former private secretary, Sir Stephen Lamport, to oversee plans for it. So will he get his way and get two thrones on the big day? And if not, why not?

In simple terms, the argument goes that if Charles and Camilla are constitutionally not married, she cannot be queen. And there remain strong indications that the marriage does not fulfil the requirements laid down by law for the spouse of the future king — for the simple reason that they did not marry in a church.

The day Charles is proclaimed king, there may be a forceful public challenge to the legality of his marriage to Camilla and which could involve calls for her not to be crowned queen

The official position remains that the Duchess of Cornwall will not be crowned queen.

At the time of the couple’s wedding in 2005, Clarence House stated: ‘It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH the Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales accedes to the Throne.’ In other words, she will not become Her Majesty.

On the face of it, nothing has occurred since that statement to alter things — except that it’s now widely known that Charles wants Camilla to wear the crown.

He has a point. If Camilla were to style herself Princess Consort, it might open her to criticism that she is not an equal partner in the union and that their marriage is, in fact, morganatic (marriage between two people of different rank) — the cursed word which dogged Charles’s predecessor as Prince of Wales, the Duke of Windsor, who chose to marry divorcee Wallis Simpson rather than become king.

But despite having met regularly for the past ten years, the Golden Orb committee still does not know the answer to the one-throne-or-two conundrum. Nor does it know whether a serious legal challenge will be raised to disrupt its plans.

The royal couple are unquestionably man and wife in the eyes of the law. But, as royals, they are also subject to other laws which do not pertain to lesser mortals — and the question of whether they are constitutionally married depends on interpretations of the Marriage Act of 1949, the Marriage Act of 1836 and the Human Rights Act of 1998.

Despite having met regularly for the past ten years, the Golden Orb committee still does not know the answer to the one-throne-or-two conundrum

The first two Acts offer differing views on the legality of high-end royals marrying civilly — while the 1998 Act is meant to override the first two. But does it, when the unwritten British constitution is involved?

This is the question lawyers have been wrestling over for a decade without a conclusion. But while there is still doubt, worries will remain about Camilla being crowned queen if she is not entitled.

Indeed, in 2005 — before Charles and Camilla were wed — the distinguished QC Lord Pannick warned: ‘The problem is that there was in 1949 a custom . . . of members of the Royal Family only marrying in church. It is very doubtful that this custom has ceased to exist, and so Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act still prevents a civil ceremony.

‘To avoid a royal flush of embarrassment, the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles need to find an archbishop, or a vicar, who is available at short notice.’

In the event, this did not happen. They were married by registrar Clair Williams in the Guildhall at Windsor, and in choosing this route to marital harmony, Charles stored up a series of problems for the future.

At the time, the former Tory Attorney General Sir Nicholas Lyell expressed grave doubts as to whether Camilla could be Charles’s legal wife. His words came as a shock to many. But the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, said all was in order. Goldsmith’s conclusions about Camilla allowed the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, to give the couple the go-ahead to get married.

But subsequent Freedom of Information requests to find out the precise advice and how Falconer came to his decision have been denied.

At the time, Palace officials were quick to say that they had sought advice from four legal experts — who gave the nod to the marriage — though they refused to reveal their lawyers’ identities.

And in 2010, the then Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, ordered that the legal advice — which some eminent lawyers claim is dubious —would be kept secret until after Charles’s death. Of course, there were widespread suspicions of an Establishment cover-up.

If Camilla were to style herself Princess Consort, it might open her to criticism that she is not an equal partner in the union and that their marriage is, in fact, morganatic (marriage between two people of different rank)

For its part, the Royal Family is, as ever, not keen to expose divisions within its ranks. But one clue towards the Queen’s position may be discerned from her behaviour at the time of her eldest son’s second wedding, in a register office. Though she gave a party for the Charles and Camilla at Windsor Castle after the nuptials, she refused to attend the civil ceremony.

Although being head of the Church of England would not have meant she could not be present, as Monarch endorsing a ceremony that some of her subjects deemed of dubious legality and which could possibly damage the Crown’s reputation may have led to some courtiers advising her to stay away.

According to some MPs, and various pressure groups, a major challenge could be launched after the Queen’s death which would question the right of Camilla to sit on a throne at her husband’s side in Westminster Abbey, and to be crowned alongside him.

Even if Charles gets his wish and has Camilla crowned his queen, the issue risks a major controversy in the run-up to his coronation.

So who are the men and women in charge of providing the nation with the biggest spectacle since the Queen’s Coronation 63 years ago?

The committee is shrouded in mystery— it is not known how many members there are, where they meet or how often. However, we do know of a few key players.

Even if Charles gets his wish and has Camilla crowned his queen, the issue risks a major controversy in the run-up to his coronation

Heading the team is the 59-year old Duke of Norfolk, whose family have held the job of Earl Marshal, organising major State occasions, since 1386.

Staunchly Roman Catholic, he is known to oversee events such as the State Opening of Parliament with absolute precision, flair and indeed good humour, to ensure that everything runs like clockwork.

He was in the news recently after he reunited with his wife, who had lived for the past five years apart from him at their stately home, Arundel Castle.

Secondly, there is 65-year-old Eton-educated barrister Thomas Woodcock who, as Garter King of Arms, has last word on ceremonial affairs.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, chief of the defence staff, has the task of assembling military personnel to line the coronation route. In 1953, when the Queen was crowned, Britain had nearly a million soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Today, there is less than a fifth of that number and it could be a struggle to muster the 10,000 service personnel it took to fill a procession in 1953 that was two miles long, not to mention the 15,800 who lined the route.

Overseeing the Westminster Abbey element of the ceremonial is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and other heavy-hitters on the committee include the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood and a representative of the National Security Secretariat, whose unenviable responsibility is to make a risk assessment of all potential security threats. Others represented include Home Secretary Amber Rudd and Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom.

Some observers will be relieved to learn there’s been some suggestion that Charles’s personal wishes are not central to the organisers’ plans.

Some years ago, there was an almighty row after the Duke of Norfolk was told that Charles would like his coronation — historically a Church of England affair held within Westminster Abbey — to be followed by a multi-faith ceremony inside Parliament.

‘It was Clarence House throwing their weight around,’ said a source at the time, ‘trying to take over the arrangements. It is constitutionally improper.’ The idea was duly dropped.

For the moment, however, the biggest headache for the Golden Orb committee is the question of whether to order one throne, or two, for Coronation Day.

Only time — and an assessment of public opinion on the matter — will tell which it’s to be.