The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1081  
Old 03-29-2015, 12:54 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Why would Charles even refuse her to marry the man that she has been dating for several years? Dave isn't a convicted murder serving time in prison


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Nice dig at her ex.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1082  
Old 03-29-2015, 05:04 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
Bea had a convicted murder ex? I didn't know there was anyone before Smiley Dave.

Oh Geez, I just googled it. That's someone who you can say no to.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1083  
Old 03-29-2015, 12:13 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
I guess that even princesses can make mistakes.
Reply With Quote
  #1084  
Old 03-29-2015, 04:00 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a) signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
(b) declared in Council, and
(c) recorded in the books of the Privy Council.


-----------------------------------------------------------

The language of the statute is clear. The consent of the Queen is required and she must give the approval in council
Seriously, what happens if one of the 6 marries without permission? What's the penalty beyond (I assume) losing place in line of succession?
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #1085  
Old 03-29-2015, 04:03 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
Seriously, what happens if one of the 6 marries without permission? What's the penalty beyond (I assume) losing place in line of succession?

Under the Marriage Act a marriage wasn't valid without the monarch's permission. So, George IV didn't lose his place in the succession when he marrie Maria Fitzherbert, his marriage just wasn't legally recognized (nor were some of the marriages that his brothers entered into). I would guess the same would apply to the 6 under the new rules.

In other realms where permission needs to be sought in order for someone in the succession, those who marry without permission do lose their place in the succession. I believe this happened to one of the younger sons of Beatrix of the Netherlands.
Reply With Quote
  #1086  
Old 03-29-2015, 04:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
Seriously, what happens if one of the 6 marries without permission? What's the penalty beyond (I assume) losing place in line of succession?
Although the marriage is legally valid the effect of a person's failure to obtain consent from the Queen is that the person and the person's descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.
Reply With Quote
  #1087  
Old 03-29-2015, 05:01 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
I guess that even princesses can make mistakes.
She made at least two mistakes. Before Paolo Liuzzo she was dating James "cocaine" Green. If I was The Queen or Charles, I'd be wary of giving her marriage approval because she has a penchant for seedy bad-boys.

Honestly, I always give Dave a side-eye because of her past choices.
Reply With Quote
  #1088  
Old 03-30-2015, 06:05 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
When BabyC2 is born, Beatrice moves to 7th place and permission is no longer needed so it doesn't matter.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1089  
Old 03-30-2015, 07:37 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
She goes back to 6th when the Queen dies. So it depends if she marries after the Queen dies, but before W & K have kid 3 or Harry kid 1, then Charles would have to sign off.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1090  
Old 03-30-2015, 07:55 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,316
Yeah, if anything would happen to any of the other six, she would have to move back up a place in the line. Which could make things complicated...
Reply With Quote
  #1091  
Old 03-30-2015, 10:12 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Yeah, if anything would happen to any of the other six, she would have to move back up a place in the line. Which could make things complicated...

It could and it could not.

If she got permission to marry from the Queen while 6th in line then she theoretically should be covered if the Queen were to pass before the wedding - Charles couldn't really go "nope, not allowing it."

If she didn't get permission and got married while 7th in line, then went back to being 6th in line Charles couldn't really go "nope, I don't like this marriage, revoking it!"

If she got engaged while 7th then became 6th again before the wedding she technically might need Charles' permission, but if the engagement had already been announced he'd be in a tight spot if he tried to go "nope, not allowed." Theoretically he could... But he'd look like a tool.
Reply With Quote
  #1092  
Old 03-30-2015, 11:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,193
I remember back in 1888 there was one of the German royals who wanted to marry someone and had the support of the Empress Frederick and Queen Victoria. They could have announced that engagement then but didn't because they knew that Wilhelm would override the permissions immediately his father died.


This scenario - and I did throw out simply a 'scenario' not a 'real' situation - could be similar if Charles had serious issues with whomever Beatrice has chosen to marry.
Reply With Quote
  #1093  
Old 03-30-2015, 11:31 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wherever I wish, United States
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I remember back in 1888 there was one of the German royals who wanted to marry someone and had the support of the Empress Frederick and Queen Victoria. They could have announced that engagement then but didn't because they knew that Wilhelm would override the permissions immediately his father died.


This scenario - and I did throw out simply a 'scenario' not a 'real' situation - could be similar if Charles had serious issues with whomever Beatrice has chosen to marry.
It might have been between Princess Viktoria of Prussia and Prince Alexander of Battneberg. Because Alexander was only HSH Wilhelm considered the marriage beneath that of a Princess of Prussia
Reply With Quote
  #1094  
Old 03-31-2015, 09:54 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
Another bit of minutiae re: changes regarding receiving the Sovereign's consent to marry:

Under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, failure to get consent meant that the marriage was invalid and therefore the children of that marriage were illegitimate and thus those children were not in the line of succession to the crown. However the Royal who married in contravention of the act did NOT lose his or her place in the line of succession. If he/she married again they would not first need divorce because legally the first marriage never existed in the first place. This is the case of the future George IV and others.

Now, while failure to comply with the consent to the marriage provisions of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 (for the first six people in the line of succession) no longer renders the marriage invalid, it does remove the person in contravention and the children from the marriage in question from the line of succession.

So previously the marriage was invalid and the children could not succeed to the throne but the person in question could marry in the future (as the future George IV did) and succeed to the throne as he did.

Now the person in contravention of the Succession to the Crown Act would be barred from succession forever as would the children of the contravening marriage.

So let's say Charles and Camilla had not yet married and today they got married without getting consent from the Queen. Charles would then be removed from the line of succession along with any children from their (legally valid) marriage. If Charles and Camilla then divorced and Charles got married a third time (to Camilla or anyone else and this time with the Queen's consent) then the children of that marriage would be in the line of succession but their father Charles would still be out by reason of his second marriage which was in contravention. Of course William and Harry (and George and their other descendants) would be unaffected by this.

Now it seems that the person marrying in contravention of the Queen's wishes will be punished (permanently) themselves for that transgression whereas before the intent seems to have been to just act like it never happened.

I'm curious if this aspect of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was envisioned and intended by its writers.
It was intended. Forfeiting the right to succeed to the Crown apparently was favored over forfeiting the right to marry.

The House of Commons Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-2013 Research Paper:

Quote:
Clause 3 (1) replaces the requirement for consent in the 1772 Act with a requirement for the first six people in the line of succession to obtain consent from the monarch if they wish to marry. Failure to obtain consent will be a disqualification, so the person and his/her descendants will not be able to succeed to the Crown. However, the marriage itself will no longer be void.
Reply With Quote
  #1095  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:34 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
With the marrying a Catholic no longer a reason for line of succession removal, the only reason to deny a marriage request if the person was a total reprobate.

Harry should stay away from Vegas now because a drunk quickie marriage by a Elvis impersonator is now valid and he loses his place when before he would have kept his place and lost quickie wife.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1096  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:34 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It was intended. Forfeiting the right to succeed to the Crown apparently was favored over forfeiting the right to marry.

The House of Commons Succession to the Crown Bill 2012-2013 Research Paper:
Isn't this basically what happened to Edward VIII upon his abdication and subsequent marriage to Wallis Simpson in a way? Granted that as monarch, he wouldn't have refused consent to his own marriage but it was, in fact, the "in council" part that threw the monkey wrench into the works?
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1097  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:44 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
I believe that with Edward VII, PM Stanley Baldwin's govt threaten to resign if he went ahead. Edward could have called their bluff and stayed but I don't think he was that enthralled with being King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1098  
Old 03-31-2015, 04:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,193
The government of the day were determined to get rid of Edward as they believed that he was totally unsuitable to the job of King. Wallis was the excuse they were handed but if it wasn't Wallis they would have found something else. They rejoiced when Wallis was landed in their laps (My grandmother's cousin was in the cabinet at the time which is my source of information for this - his letters to his family included his, and the government's angst at the King and his lack of Kingliness and understanding of the role - its limits and restrictions etc - and those letters started almost immediately but certainly by the summer of 1936 he was writing that there had been discussions about 'what to do with the King' and his attitude - not overt suggestions of overthrowing him but concerns. The Christmas letter expressed the delight that they had been able to get rid of him without revealing all the things he was doing that was unacceptable - and I am not sure all of those things have ever been made known).
Reply With Quote
  #1099  
Old 05-03-2015, 10:00 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,634
One place where the recent changes to the primogeniture in the line of succession will be shown is with the Cambridge children. Should they have a third child and that child is male, he would still follow our new Sweet Cheeks in the line. When Andrew was born after Anne, Anne got bumped down the line and yet again when Edward was born.

As for Andrew succeeding should Charles not ascend, as soon as I saw the words "Mail Online", I knew it had to be written by someone that needs to go out and buy a clue about how things are done.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #1100  
Old 05-03-2015, 10:33 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
As for Andrew succeeding should Charles not ascend, as soon as I saw the words "Mail Online", I knew it had to be written by someone that needs to go out and buy a clue about how things are done.
it's absolutely new territory. All previous British abdication included renouncement of succesion rights for all descendents. So, indeed, Andrew would succeed Charles.
In modern world Charles' or William's abdication will require new laws.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 455 07-19-2015 09:05 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 11:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 09:34 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik, Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 05:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 04:17 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style countess of wessex's eveningwear coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish royal family duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece jean kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess madeleine hats princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes fashion queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 spanish queen state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises