Your comments on the 'Lawful Impediment?' programme.
The views expressed on these pages are not necessarily the views of the BBC. The e-mails published will be reflective of the balance of opinion received.
I could not care less what they do - but the prospect of whatever happens being shoved down our throats morning, noon and night for months or years by the media is a nightmarish thought.
A Barnes, England
Mrs Parker Bowles or the throne. Having your cake and eating it may be acceptable but not for those who intend to be head of a church. Outrageous that Her Majesty, The Queen should support this union, in view of her uncle's love for an American divorcee. Shame, shame, shame.
Sandra Pascoal-Lima, UK
What do William and Harry think about this? Surely their feelings are important? I'd like to hear their opinions. My personal one is that Charles and Camilla should never ever King and Queen. They are both divorced adulterers.
Charles and Camilla should marry if that is what they choose. Charles should become King and the public should choose if Camilla becomes Queen. This would result in an overwhelming vote of Camilla NOT being chosen to be our Queen - unanimously.
Lauren, United Kingdom
They're adults like the rest of us. If they want to marry, they should. Queen Camilla? If he's the King, why not? Only people's idiotic bigotry hurts people this way. They are as free to do as they wish as any of us, even if they don't or won't understand this themselves.
Den Church, UK
I don't care who he gets married to but I do not want him on the throne, I think it should by pass him to his son then maybe they would be accepted more. Runs in the family doesn't it?
Nikky, Glasgow, Scotland
How can you possibly compare Edward and Mrs Simpson with Prince Charles and Camilla? They are separated by decades in which society has changed beyond recognition. At the time of Edward divorce was largely taboo at any strata of society whereas now it is commonplace.
Stephen Eggleston, England
Charles should marry the women he loves, but I feel she should not be Queen, or ever carry the title of The Princess of Wales
Norah Fowler, Hyde, Cheshire
I'm a lot more relaxed about a Queen Camilla than I would ever have been about a Queen Diana - at least Camilla understands what the job spec entails, unlike Diana who thought that she was the important one and that she could change the business's culture from within. And as for the C of E issue - disestablish it. There's no place for an established church in any part of this multi-cultural, multi-religion country - and anyway, the C of E isn't the established church in Scotland, so quite frankly its opinion is minority anyway.
Ann, Stevenage, UK
Most of the programme was recycled. It took you a long time to get to the "impediment". What about Princess Anne? She seems to have managed to get married twice.
Jane, Waterlooville UK
What a load of rubbish. Who really cares whether they get married or not, when there are is so much misery being wrought in this world? Start broadcasting things that people really want to know about.
Philip Irwin, Sunderland
Doesn't the incorporation of the EU conventions on human rights into British law automatically supersede the exclusions to royal civil marriage in the marriage acts? Also doesn't this mean they should have the right to vote and to chose their spouses regardless of religious belief?
If the Prime Minister is of the opinion that this marriage can lawfully take place as a Civil Marriage, why did The Princess Royal have to marry in a civil service in Scotland? Surely she could have married in Windsor like her brother.
Yvonne Allison, Weymouth, Dorset
They should not marry. Their love ruined three peoples lives. Diana, William and Harry. Not to mention the nation losing Diana and it is still not clear how and why she died.
Angela, Dorset, UK
The programme tonight has highlighted the issues we were not aware of and no other media told us. I would congratulate panorama for bringing up the issues.
Sashi, Ickenham , UK
If this execrable couple had any honour or integrity, Mr Windsor would renounce his right to the Throne and leave the wave clear for his elder son to succeed. In the meantime we must all hope Queen Elizabeth II emulates her late mother (the most recent Queen Consort and a commoner to boot!) and outlives her eldest son.
Ivan Rowland, London
If The Prime Minister has studied this and has stated that this marriage is legal, then Prince Charles and Camilla should, of course, go ahead and follow their hearts like the rest of us would. But I cannot (yet) get my head around Queen Camilla. That is another question. But I, for one, want them both to be happy. I think also people warm to people in time.
Catherine Cave, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, England
I missed the first part of the programme but wonder if mention was made of 'Queen Caroline' the wife of George IV. King George had her locked out of his coronation and did not want her as his queen, but become queen she did as she was his wife. If he could have thought up a different title for her I'm sure he would have done, but he couldn't and just because people don't want Camilla to be queen doesn't mean that she won't really be queen, anymore than George IV not wanting Caroline to be queen stopped her being so.
Muiris, Cardiff, UK
The government must come clean and answer the question posed by the programme. If Edward VIII and Princess Margaret were barred from a civil marriage then they must act to put things right before this one goes ahead.
Philip Hall, Northampton, UK
Although I think your programme was interesting from the point of view of the law, surely the bigger question is should we, the people, have this woman thrust upon us? As a lifelong royalist I think the time has come to look at a republic and I think you should do a programme looking at monarchy versus a republic.
Alison Stokoe, Fife Scotland
In a world full of hate, war, pollution, death and greed - what is the problem if Camilla and Charles want to get married - are we all so "sad" that a little happiness in two people's lives can cause such controversy. Yes I do believe in the monarchy and yes Charles will make a good king - he actually cares about things and Camilla will make a good queen/wife/partner/consort or whatever - does it really matter?
Leonie, Colyton, Devon
It is obvious that the intention is for Camilla to be Queen. The Princess Consort title is a ruse to keep us quiet until the PR team can win us over - which is a very long way off. This assumption of the gullibility of the public is very insulting.
Lorna Heathcote, West Malling, Kent
Your programme confirmed what I thought I already understood. Charles and Camilla should marry, if that's what they want. But in doing so he should renounce his right of succession. If they want to behave as "normal" people then let them become normal people. This is another example of a self indulgent man wanting everything his own way - regardless of the consequences to his own family, the nation and the standing of the Monarchy. I am disappointed in the Government and the Anglican Church for their complicity.
Paul Bennett, Seaton, Devon
The legal arguments justifying the marriage arrangements must be disclosed. Failure to do so will further damage my trust and confidence in the Establishment and blur my understanding of democracy.
Eric Abel, Hay-on-Wye, Wales
I think he should renounce the throne and marry her as I think the majority of people don't care if he marries her but don't want her for Queen which she will automatically become when he becomes King. If he does that we will see how strong his love is. Margaret had that option but didn't marry, she didn't want to lose the money and the status. That would be the real test of strength of love for me, he could live in exile like his great uncle.
Janet Elliott, Reading England
Slightly worrying that it appears to be one rule for Charles & Camilla and another for everyone else ... including other members of the Royal Family. However, if they're happy then why not marry? Good luck to them. But I think it should coincide with Charles stepping aside to allow William to be the next King. As an Anglican and Royalist, I could not support Charles if he were to be crowned.
Nets, Newcastle, Tyne & Wear
What does it matter if the marriage is not lawful? I can see that it would if Camilla were of childbearing age, but as she cannot be then I can't see what "important consequences could follow" as the programme repeatedly claimed but didn't specify.
Julia Jefferson, London, UK
Now this is out in the open I think we should have some honest answers from the Church and Government as to why they are trying to fudge this issue. If they do not do this then the ensuing mess when they end up with a King and 'Queen' who are not legally married would be tremendous. Of course this could all be avoided if Charles did the decent thing and abdicated in favour of his eldest son, but when did he ever "do the decent thing"?
Ann Charlton, Oxford
Camilla's Royal spouse may adore her unconditionally, but his public should not be compelled to do so, even that part of it that wishes them both well.
Mrs M Ball, UK
Once again I sense the church dogma is in the background, one has to accept society is changing. If the church is now admitting it has gay clergy let it also accept this marriage. I remember in my history lessons so many years ago being told that it was unheard of that a person who was not C of E could be Prime Minister or Chancellor, but its now doubtful if one can honestly say the church is the voice of the people.
Horne, Lima, Peru
As Prince Charles has decided to marry his partner, Camilla, then he should be free to do so. However, he should then have to give up all rights to the throne, retire to Highgrove and live as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. The lawful impediment, mentioned in Panorama tonight, is obviously the reason why Princess Anne's second marriage was in Scotland. Camilla should take a leaf out of Tim Lawrence's book - he spends his time quietly in the background. So should she - Wouldn't that be wonderful!
If there is even the slightest doubt that the consolidation of the 1949 Act for the register of marriages prevents Charles and Camilla marrying in England then the British public should be made aware of the reasons why this Act no longer applies in their case. Their entire relationship has been built on lies to the public and they are still compounding these with "Princess Consort".
Mrs. C. Hedderly, Bucks.
Most people I have discussed the proposed marriage with agree that he should renounce his rite of accession. The situations of his great uncle and his aunt confirm this.
Iain Russell-Jarvie, York
Prince Charles should abdicate if he wants to marry. What makes his relationship so different from Edward and Mrs Simpson, Princess Margaret's relationship or that of Princess Anne's marriage to Captain Mark Phillips. History and the law has taken hundreds of years in their writings. I hope that he is not above the law and history of this country.
Angela Morris, Swansea, West Glamorgan
The law states that any room or place licensed for civil weddings must be available for any persons wishing to be married. does this mean every British subject getting married can opt for a wedding in Windsor Castle. It seems rules are being changed to suit both royalty and the government
Stephen W Watson, Hugglescote, England
I do not think that Charles should become King or Camilla Princess Consort, because I believe they have been deceitful not only to Diana but the people of this Country and how can you respect people like this? If they wish to marry and there love is so strong, then it should be an easy option for them give up there privileged life.
Dorothy Williams, Cambridge, England
Marriage is about love, not politics or royalty. In this day and age when spin can effect everything we say and do, its good to see love still conquers all. Is Charles fit to be King; No, but he is fit to love, fall in love and marry.
Paul Rutter, Swindon
This action by Prince Charles will be deeply resented by the British people. He cannot have both; if he wishes to marry this woman he must give up the throne. The background to this is far worse than 1937. We must not forget that the mother of Prince William has died. The people of this realm will never forget that. If he decides to marry he must give up the crown. It is as simple as that, it is one or the other. It might be possible for others but one expects a rather higher standard from the heir to the throne.
Mrs K Maureen McClure, Newcastle, Co Down, Northern Ireland
What a sloppily cobbled together programme: 80% was a selectively edited version of a previously broadcast Panorama. As for the rest, your researchers and the talking constitutional heads failed to mention the much more recent and relevant case of the Princess Royal whose second marriage in Scotland confirms that the legality of a royal civil marriage in England is at best dubious. Or is this yet another case of the Prime Minister making the law up as he goes along and hoping we won't notice?
By marrying Charles, Camilla will gain lots of priveleges paid for by the British taxpayer, of which I am one. I am not at all happy to give any of my hard earned money towards the upkeep of an adulterer who could not keep her paws off another woman's man. Both Charles and her should be ashamed of their behaviour and if they want to marry should do the decent thing and give up the throne.
Maria-Elena McBride, Chorleywood, UK
As far as I am concerned, he cannot have Camilla and the Throne. She on the other hand can never be Queen and should not be HRH. She is after all his mistress.
Mrs C Snoch, Iver Heath, Bucks
The civil marriage between Charles and Camilla may be illegal (Panorama) and morally is just a little better than living together "without the benefit of civil marriage" (Radio 4 Sunday). Charles cannot become Head of the Church of England, as he has already bent the rules of Church Law concerning marriage, for when he married Diana he knew that his marriage vows in the church and before God were hypocrisy and empty of meaning. Morally he has flouted Christian values by a long and adulterous relationship. If a prospective Archbishop of Canterbury had behaved as Charles had, he would never be made Archbishop. Likewise, Charles has made himself morally unfit to become Supreme Governor of the Church of England. He cannot once again go into a Christian church and before God and the nation to make meaningful coronation vows. It would be hypocritical of him to try and it would appear to be so. Let him marry, but as a private individual without civil list and privilege. Let a trimmed-down monarchy skip a generation.
Peter McQuillen, Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire
Charles will have his way, no matter what the public may think or which law is in force.
Doreen Fairless, Whitley Bay, United Kingdom
How can a church that was founded by Henry VIII because he wanted a divorce and to remarry not allow divorced people to marry? This was surely the reason for the formation of the Church of England in the first place?
Sandra Collins, Wolverhampton
Society has changed. Camilla will not need to be called Queen, we can love her as she is, for the way she supports Prince Charles as his wife.
Liza Coates, Edinburgh
It would have been more dignified and respectful of public standards of decency if Charles had renounced the throne and pursued a private path. But this way, at the next ascendency, it would be better to change to a republic. Please, in the meantime, don't give us the "royal romance" stuff from now until April. While we have not forgotten the history of this relationship or Charles' very selfish actions, it sticks in the throat.
Jane Harper, Steyning, W Sussex
I wonder why it was not mentioned that Princess Anne's (or should that be HRH the Princess Royal) civil ceremony for her second marriage was held in Scotland. I would have thought it was quite relevant to what was being discussed this evening. Presumably advice was requested and given from No 10 on that occasion also. But of course that was 1992 and not under the present regime where anything goes and the written law of many a year is totally disregarded just because it suits the moment. I try not to be cynical, but...
Jan Shadbolt, Stroud, Gloucestershire