The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 04-18-2005, 09:58 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
The only legal restrictions on a marriage are by the Act of Settlement and the Royal Marriages Act:

* Up to the age of 25 he requires the permission of the Sovereign to marry;
* He can marry anyone, as long as she is not Roman Catholic.

If he does marry a Roman Catholic he forfeits his right to the Throne.

This is not the Queen's ruling, it is laid down by an Act of Parliament and can only be changed by the British Parliament.
.
have the Parliament ever proposed a change to the law?
__________________

  #162  
Old 04-18-2005, 01:11 PM
Jo's Avatar
Jo Jo is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 129
william doesn't have to marry a virgin as a matter of law but it is a tradition so i wouldn't be suprised if he does since the rf is very traditional. :)
__________________

  #163  
Old 04-18-2005, 11:53 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo
william doesn't have to marry a virgin as a matter of law but it is a tradition so i wouldn't be suprised if he does since the rf is very traditional. :)
well unless he'll marry someone very young he might have a hard time finding one :)
  #164  
Old 04-19-2005, 12:59 AM
AnitolaNova's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Readstown, United States
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by stacy
have the Parliament ever proposed a change to the law?
I think they have thought of changing that law. I remember reading something about it.
  #165  
Old 04-19-2005, 02:33 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 629
is there also a rule that the lady cant become a queen unless shes british born?Cause if this isnt true, then why was there such an uproar when king edward wanted to marry Wallis?because she was a Catholic and refused to convort?
  #166  
Old 04-19-2005, 02:39 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: los angeles, United States
Posts: 52
Wallis Simpson

there was such an uproar because :

1. She was divorced
2. Still married to her second husband
3. Did not have "acceptable" breeding to join the royal family.

in those days mistresses did not become Queen and the royal family were even more concerned with appearances and the rules that governed royal behavior manly look respectable and any "hanky panky" stayed quiet.
  #167  
Old 04-19-2005, 02:57 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksenia
there was such an uproar because :

1. She was divorced
2. Still married to her second husband
3. Did not have "acceptable" breeding to join the royal family.

in those days mistresses did not become Queen and the royal family were even more concerned with appearances and the rules that governed royal behavior manly look respectable and any "hanky panky" stayed quiet.
The real reason for the abdication was none of the above of course but this was the reason that the government of the day gave the people knowing that they would accept that rather than the idea that the king was not doing his job properly. He was not security conscious. At one dinner Wallis Simpson mentioned something to one of the government ministers who realised that the only way that she would know this information was if she had read it and she admitted that she had done so. Edward didn't secure the government boxes and anyone who was in the house at the time could read them - remember this was 1936 and a man named Hitler was flexing his muscles.

As to marrying a commoner - why not? Since World War Two only the late Duke of Kent and the present Queen Elizabeth II have not married commoners. Remember that in Britain everyone is a commoner if they are not royal or noble - to be noble a person must have a title in their own right therefore the Queen Mum, Diana, Fergie, Sophie, Camilla etc were all commoners on their wedding days. Sure they may have had noble fathers and even had the 'title' Lady but they were still commoners.

The RMA insists that the monarch must give consent not only to the person up until they turn 25 but at any stage. Charles had to have the consent of his mother to marry Camilla and he is over 25. Once the person turns 25 they can notifiy the government of their desire to marry without the monarch's consent and after a year if neither house of parliament objects then the marriage can take place. Without the monarch's consent or the consent of parliament as described above the marriage is not legal.

It is not the RMA that restricts the religion but the Act of Settlement 1701. Technically, William can marry anyone he wants so long as they are not Roman Catholic so yes he could marry a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an atheist, an agnostic or any other protestant denomination. This made sense at the time but not now however there are problems repealing this law as it would have to be done so as not the repeal the whole Act of Settlement or the senior Catholic claimant could claim the throne, which would create some form of crisis.
  #168  
Old 04-19-2005, 05:45 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Excellent explanation chrissy57. Thanks.
.
  #169  
Old 04-19-2005, 06:16 AM
Alice Vilghelmina's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 94
to convert the religion was a usual matter for royal brides at all times ( for ex., Russian's princesses had a strong choice: to marry for royal and convert religion or to go to the monastery)
what's about William..... think the rules will become more flexible
the future King and the head of anglican's church can't be divorced:) but the goverment don't forbid to Charles to heritate the throne.
  #170  
Old 04-19-2005, 06:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice Vilghelmina
]the future King and the head of anglican's church can't be divorced:) but the goverment don't forbid to Charles to heritate the throne.
Can you please tell me in which Act of Parliament this is stated? It isn't in either the Act of Settlement or the Royal Marriage Act.

I hope you aren't basing this on the abdication of Edward VIII because her divorce wasn't the reason for the abdication but was the excuse put to the people so that they would accept it.
  #171  
Old 04-19-2005, 06:54 AM
Alice Vilghelmina's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 94
chrissy57,

I didn't study official docs so carefully.
I heard from Euronews and read in the serious newspapers that Charles didn't lose his rights on the throne after his wedding. Also the goverment found point ( don't remember the name of act) which let Camilla to pretend on the title of Queen when Charles will became the King. Am I not right?
  #172  
Old 04-19-2005, 11:04 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
......It is not the RMA that restricts the religion but the Act of Settlement 1701. Technically, William can marry anyone he wants so long as they are not Roman Catholic so yes he could marry a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an atheist, an agnostic or any other protestant denomination. This made sense at the time but not now however there are problems repealing this law as it would have to be done so as not the repeal the whole Act of Settlement or the senior Catholic claimant could claim the throne, which would create some form of crisis.
crises? why? It's the Parliament which in the end decides who will be king - so in fact anyone could claim to be the 'rightful' monarch - if the Parliament doesn't agree they have no case
  #173  
Old 04-19-2005, 01:27 PM
cute_girl's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksenia
there was such an uproar because :

1. She was divorced
2. Still married to her second husband
how can some1 be divorced but still married?sorry but I couldnt get this
  #174  
Old 04-19-2005, 01:28 PM
cute_girl's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by houri
a muslim woman can't marry a christian man he should convert to Islam to marry her
muslim women can marry men from any religion,there's no limitatian as far as I know
  #175  
Old 04-19-2005, 02:14 PM
Piewi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: BA, Argentina
Posts: 1,353
Wills marring a comooner will be ok. For be "royal" (i don`t think that some people are more impotant that others) you aren`t "different" for a normal girl. If he loves a girl, and she has no past (i mean, if she has a bad past, it doesn´t is very nice), studies , it will be great.
I think that is bad that Wills can´t marry a Catholic girl, if he can marries girls of most of religions, why not a Catholic?.
  #176  
Old 04-19-2005, 03:58 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piewi
Wills marring a comooner will be ok. For be "royal" (i don`t think that some people are more impotant that others) you aren`t "different" for a normal girl. If he loves a girl, and she has no past (i mean, if she has a bad past, it doesn´t is very nice), studies , it will be great.
I think that is bad that Wills can´t marry a Catholic girl, if he can marries girls of most of religions, why not a Catholic?.
Check out this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701
  #177  
Old 04-20-2005, 04:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by stacy
crises? why? It's the Parliament which in the end decides who will be king - so in fact anyone could claim to be the 'rightful' monarch - if the Parliament doesn't agree they have no case
Don't forget that the succession is not decided by parliament but is laid down by the Act of Settlement and common law practices built up over centuries. In Britain the courts have a huge say in the interpretation of the laws passed by parliament as they have a three way system of government - legislature, executive and JUDICIAL. All three are involved in making the laws and not just the parliament. If the courts ruled that someone other than the parliament's choice was the rightful monarch based on acts of parliament that exist or have been repealed there is a crisis.

If Parliament repealed the Act of Settlement they would have to deal with two claimants - 1) the incumbant (currently Elizabeth II) and 2) the descendent of the senior line disinherited by the original Act of Settlement.

If the original Act of Settlement, or just the anti-Catholic clauses therein, is repealed there are quite a few claimants with better blood claims than the current House of Windsor - there were 58 people with better blood claims than George I in 1714 when the Act of Settlement was first applied, but they were barred due to their Roman Catholicism. Their descendents could make a claim, using the British legal system which interprets the laws passed by parliament, once the Act of Settlement, which barred their ancestors from the throne, is repealed. In other words they could put a claim before the courts the instant the law is repealed and the legal system would take over preventing further legislation on the issue until the courts make a ruling. There claim would be along the lines of their ancestor being barred from the throne due to a factor that no longer applies and therefore they should have the throne. This could take quite a while. The government would have to deal with this problem before it could repeal any aspect of the Act of Settlement or it could have a constitutional crisis on its hands. Remember that the British constitution is unwritten so the courts are a major part of the interpretation of the laws passed by parliament.
  #178  
Old 04-20-2005, 05:22 AM
Alice Vilghelmina's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 94
chrissy57,
so what about Charles's divorce and his rights on the throne?
I thought that the question " Will be Charles the King after his second wedding" is almost closed. Am I mistaken?
  #179  
Old 04-20-2005, 06:07 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice Vilghelmina
chrissy57,
so what about Charles's divorce and his rights on the throne?
I thought that the question " Will be Charles the King after his second wedding" is almost closed. Am I mistaken?
Sorry I didn't see your post earlier.

Charles' divorce never had any bearing on his rights of succession nor did his marrying a divorcee. Where people got that idea was from Edward VIII's divorce, which was said was due to his desire to marry a divorcee, however there was never any law that said he couldn't - only government opinion and public opinion at a time when divorce was frowned upon. I have explained about Edward's failings as king which was the real reason anyway elsewhere but I will explain it again if you like.

As Britain doesn't have any provision for a morganatic marriage, or unequal marriage, Camilla is legally entitled to all of Charles' titles since their marriage. According to this she is right now entitled to be called The Princess of Wales but has announced that she will use Charles' second title Duke of Cornwall and be known as The Duchess of Cornwall. In time she will be entitled to be called HM Queen Camilla but has said, at this stage that her intention is to be known as Princess Consort - again using a lesser title to that which she will be entitled to use.

Some people claim that due to various clauses in the Marriage Acts of 1949 and 1953 that members of the British Royal Family can't contract a legal marriage in a civil ceremony, in England, but the highest legal official of the government, the Lord Chancellor, has advised otherwise. Unless a court rules differently, which personally I doubt that they will now but who knows with courts, then the marriage is legal and Charles remains the heir to the throne with Camilla to be his official consort. There is a minister of the Church of England who has put in a number of protests about the marriage and he may take the matter to court but unless the court rules the marriage illegal it is legal.
  #180  
Old 04-20-2005, 06:37 AM
Alice Vilghelmina's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 94
Chrissy57,
many thanks for explanations!!!
I knew about titles of Camilla, but forget about the protest which was taken to court.
so....it turns out that the marriage of Charles&Camilla can be recognized illegal.....hm....
I doubt that the court rules the marriage illegal. The most important question is heritation.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
marriage, prince harry, prince william


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
William, Harry, their Girlfriends and the Press Ava Elizabeth Prince Harry and Prince William 1228 11-11-2010 04:49 PM
Prince Harry Current Events 1: December 2002-September 2003 Kelly B Current Events Archive 109 09-26-2003 05:03 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grahamm grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdulah ii 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 photo picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess eugenie eveningwear princess ingrid alexandra princess madeleine 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 outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania revolution royal fashion september 2016 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 09:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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