The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 07-10-2005, 08:29 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 767
i think charles would do everything he can when he becomes King...to make Camilla Queen of Great Britian! he already tries to get her the Order of the Garter ..but i doubt the queen is going to give that to her
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-10-2005, 08:30 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Heavens, they've only been married a couple of months; it's a bit soon to be wanting her to be made a Lady of the Garter. Where did you read that?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-10-2005, 08:58 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,505
Well I probably asked this question b/f, but what do you guys think the Queen Mum's view was toward Diana at the end of both of their lives?
__________________
*Under Construction*
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-10-2005, 09:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
Camilla cannot use the title of princess of Wales, if charles becomes king either will be able to use the queen title.
Camilla could chose to be known as HRH the Princess of Wales at any time because she IS Princess of Wales. For the sake of the public acceptance of the marriage, she, Charles and the Queen all agreed it would be best for her to be known by her secondary title, Duchess of Cornwall, instead.

The issue of Camilla becoming Queen Consort was already made clear when the Cabinet was questioned by MP's. The marriage is valid under British law and Camilla will become Queen when Charles ascends the throne unless the Government passes legislation preventing this. In addition, any nation in the Commonwealth with the British Sovereign as Head of State would also have to be consulted under the present constitutional system.

In reality, the issue has already been decided and Camilla will be Queen Consort if and when Charles becomes King. There is no doubt in my mind the Government approved the marriage knowing this would be the case. I doubt any future Cabinet, Parliament or Prime Minister would be willing to introduce the necessary legislation, any more than they were in 1936 in the case of King Edward VIII.

Either she is worthy now to be Charles' consort or she is not. The decision is made already.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-10-2005, 09:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reina
Well I probably asked this question b/f, but what do you guys think the Queen Mum's view was toward Diana at the end of both of their lives?
Again, hopefully someday we will know for sure when the Queen allows a royal biographer full access to the royal archives to write a biography of the Queen Mother.

We do know the Queen Mother, like most members of the royal family, was greatly relieved when Diana realigned her behavior and attitude towards preserving the monarchy after the divorce. Instead of leaking to the press and talking to Richard Kay, the Princess was much more interested in preserving whatever rank and position she could salvage in the aftermath, rather than manipulating to try and put pressure on the Palace all the time.

It was said the Queen Mother was very much in favor of preserving Diana's role and precedence as the mother of a future king after the divorce. She felt this would help keep Diana "under control" and give the Queen some authority over her activities in the future. Given the eventual settlement agreement, it was clear this was accomplished in the end.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-10-2005, 09:28 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,505
Thank you for clarifying. And yes it woudl be great if there was an official biography on her.
__________________
*Under Construction*
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-10-2005, 09:37 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
The marriage is valid under British law and Camilla will become Queen when Charles ascends the throne unless the Government passes legislation preventing this.
In reality, the issue has already been decided and Camilla will be Queen Consort if and when Charles becomes King.
The wedding is actually not legal under British law, but under European law. British law state that a royal wedding is legal only when religious (which is understandable since the King/Queen is sacred and head of Anglican church). BUT Charles and Camilla are protected (like any citizen of the European union) by the European declaration of human rights who state that a civil wedding is legal for everyone. And as you know, the European court is the ultimate authority in the EU now...
After the engagement, it has been announced that Camz will be Princess consort, not Queen Consort. But I have no doubt they will upgrade her to Queen Consort when and if (as you rightly say) Charles become King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-10-2005, 09:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,505
The law that PCharles despised, was the law that made his marriage possible.
__________________
*Under Construction*
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-10-2005, 09:47 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reina
The law that PCharles despised, was the law that made his marriage possible.
Indeed! At the time, the British press (which has been really cruel about all the things that went wrong before the wedding) made a lot of fun of that "detail".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-10-2005, 10:03 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
After the engagement, it has been announced that Camz will be Princess consort, not Queen Consort. But I have no doubt they will upgrade her to Queen Consort when and if (as you rightly say) Charles become King.
According to the royal family website, she'll be known as Princess Consort. Unless all sorts of special legislation is passed, she'll be Queen Consort, regardless of what she's known as. I assume everybody involved in this situation is hoping that the day is far enough off that she can just become Queen without very much fuss being raised.

I'll be interested to see how long that statement about being known as Princess Consort survives on that website. Something tells me that that isn't actually the plan.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-10-2005, 10:27 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,505
I am glad they still have the pic of PDiana and the two boys and PCharles on that ship. It is a nice pic and I like the color of PDiana's dress.
__________________
*Under Construction*
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-10-2005, 10:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
The wedding is actually not legal under British law, but under European law. British law state that a royal wedding is legal only when religious (which is understandable since the King/Queen is sacred and head of Anglican church). BUT Charles and Camilla are protected (like any citizen of the European union) by the European declaration of human rights who state that a civil wedding is legal for everyone. And as you know, the European court is the ultimate authority in the EU now...
After the engagement, it has been announced that Camz will be Princess consort, not Queen Consort. But I have no doubt they will upgrade her to Queen Consort when and if (as you rightly say) Charles become King.

This is incorrect. A civil wedding is legal under British law for all citizens of the United Kingdom and royal marriages are legal under the Royal Marriages Act upon approval of the Sovereign. The Queen and the Government both gave their assent to Charles and Camilla marrying and that is the end of it.

The Church of England cannot deny a royal marriage if the Sovereign has given approval. The Crown is the Head of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury approved and blessed the marriage. To imply Charles and Camilla's marriage is "illegal" is ridiculous and without merit.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:03 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
This is incorrect. A civil wedding is legal under British law for all citizens of the United Kingdom and royal marriages are legal under the Royal Marriages Act upon approval of the Sovereign. The Queen and the Government both gave their assent to Charles and Camilla marrying and that is the end of it.

The Church of England cannot deny a royal marriage if the Sovereign has given approval. The Crown is the Head of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury approved and blessed the marriage. To imply Charles and Camilla's marriage is "illegal" is ridiculous and without merit.
I, along with several top lawyers in the UK, strongly disagree with you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
According to the royal family website, she'll be known as Princess Consort. Unless all sorts of special legislation is passed, she'll be Queen Consort, regardless of what she's known as. I assume everybody involved in this situation is hoping that the day is far enough off that she can just become Queen without very much fuss being raised.

I'll be interested to see how long that statement about being known as Princess Consort survives on that website. Something tells me that that isn't actually the plan.
The Government already made clear that Camilla cannot be known as HRH the Princess Consort without legislation being introduced and passed by Parliament. It was simply agreed no special legislation was required at this time since Camilla is legally Princess of Wales, but choosing to be known as Duchess of Cornwall with the assent of the Sovereign.

This question was settled in 1936 and is not going to change at some future date. The wife of the King is automatically Queen Consort and cannot hold any other title without approval from Parliament. In 1936, Churchill had suggested Wallis could be known as HRH the Duchess of Lancaster, rather than Queen Consort, with the approval of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

This argument was rejected by constitutional experts and the Labour Party, who felt it allowed the King, as the fount of honour, to circumvent the role of Parliament and the right of a Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Perogative on behalf of the majority party in the House of Commons.

There is no way a future Government would allow a precedent to be set on this question, not to mention the uncertainty of the Commonwealth crown countries approving it as well. Camilla will be Queen Consort.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:17 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
to be more precise, Charles, as the heir to the throne, is not a "normal" British citizen. His wedding is ruled by special laws. I can assure you that the British law is very clear about royal weddings. They must be religious. I maintain that this wedding is not legal under British law. BUT I said it was legal under European law so, since the UK are part of the EU, it is legal in the UK as well eventually. But again, this is an European law who allowed the wedding, not a British one.

The fact that the Queen approve a royal wedding does make it automatically legal. The Queen is not above the laws. Or is she? In this case I have really underestimated the extend of her powers.
You seems to say that I wrote that the wedding is illegal now. I never said that: I said that, if it wasn't for the EU, this wedding would not be legal. But of course, it is.
Beside, I've never understood by they did not simply religiously marry in Scotland like Ann as it would have stopped any kind of discussions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
I, along with several top lawyers in the UK, strongly disagree with you.
Yes, well let's see if these so-called "top lawyers" in the UK could win such a battle in the Courts. The question is settled and Parliament is the ultimate arbitrator of constitutional law in the British system of government. The matter is closed legally.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:22 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
This argument was rejected by constitutional experts and the Labour Party, who felt it allowed the King, as the fount of honour, to circumvent the role of Parliament and the right of a Prime Minister to exercise the Royal Perogative on behalf of the majority party in the House of Commons.
You mention the Labour Party, but not the Tory. Does it mean that the Tory were favourable to a wedding between David and Wallis? If yes, what was exactly the extend of this support?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
to be more precise, Charles, as the heir to the throne, is not a "normal" British citizen. His wedding is ruled by special laws. I can assure you that the British law is very clear about royal weddings. They must be religious. I maintain that this wedding is not legal under British law. BUT I said it was legal under European law so, since the UK are part of the EU, it is legal in the UK as well eventually. But again, this is an European law who allowed the wedding, not a British one.

The fact that the Queen approve a royal wedding does make it automatically legal. The Queen is not above the laws. Or is she? In this case I have really underestimated the extend of her powers.
You seems to say that I wrote that the wedding is illegal now. I never said that: I said that, if it wasn't for the EU, this wedding would not be legal. But of course, it is.
Beside, I've never understood by they did not simply religiously marry in Scotland like Ann as it would have stopped any kind of discussions.
In a strict constitutional sense, the Sovereign is above the law. However, in reality and practice, not to mention centuries of parliamentary precedents, the Prime Minister exercises the royal perogative in the name of the party holding a constitutional majority in the House of Commons. The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule. She may consult, she may warn, she may advise, but must always heed the advice of the Prime Minister and the Government.

This is the very heart of the British system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary government. There is no debate that once a Prime Minister advises the Sovereign on a matter, the Crown must accept the advice as law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:25 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
Yes, well let's see if these so-called "top lawyers" in the UK could win such a battle in the Courts. The question is settled and Parliament is the ultimate arbitrator of constitutional law in the British system of government. The matter is closed legally.
Of course they could not win. They could possibly win the case in the Uk but then Charles and Camilla would appeal to the European Court of Justice and would win their appeal.
Again, I've never said the wedding is not legal in general. I said it's not legal regarding the British law alone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
You mention the Labour Party, but not the Tory. Does it mean that the Tory were favourable to a wedding between David and Wallis? If yes, what was exactly the extend of this support?
No, the Tories were opposed to the marriage, as were the Unionists. Baldwin had the support of all parties in denying the King his approval for the marriage and refusing to introduce legislation in Parliament allowing Wallis to assume a lesser title. The Dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa were also opposed. There was no way out for Edward except to abdicate.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, princess diana, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions about British Styles and Titles summrbrew2 British Royals 2451 06-24-2014 09:35 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]