were overcautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this Statement is correct. We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry (Article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (Article 14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.Professor Rebecca Probert has subsequently argued that Charles and Camilla's wedding is not legal. She says that it was not possible, as the government claimed, for such a drastic change in the law to have been implemented by the 1949 Act because it was introduced under a specially authorised procedure that can only be used in respect of "Consolidation Acts", acts which bring together the law previously contained in a number of statutes into one statute without changing it in any major way. Probert argues that article 79(5), which reads: "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family.", still holds, on these grounds. The government raised the issue of the Human Rights Act, noting that under this the 1949 Act had to be interpreted wherever possible to uphold the right to marry without discrimination. The key words are "wherever possible" - the Human Rights Act specifically states that where a statute makes something illegal the only way to make it legal is to amend or repeal the statute. For example, were the Sovereign to deny a member permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, an application to the Court for a declaration that the marriage must be permitted to go ahead under human rights legislation would fail. Eleven objections were received by the Cirencester and Chippenham register offices but were all rejected by the Registrar General (and National Statistician) Len Cook, who determined that a civil marriage would in fact be valid. Change of the wedding location and date On 17 February, Clarence House announced the marriage's change of venue from Windsor Castle to the Windsor Guildhall, immediately outside the walls of the castle. This substitution came about when it was discovered that the legal requirements for licensing the royal castle for civil weddings would require opening it up to other prospective couples for at least three years. On 22 February, Buckingham Palace