The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
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.
EU law has no jurisdiction over the Royal Marriages Act or the position of Parliament and the Crown in settling these matters. There is no question about the matter and The Church cannot overrule the Queen or Parliament on a royal marriage. The Crown is the Crown.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:32 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
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.
Thank you. Are you an historian?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:54 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
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.
You should take that up with the webmaster of the official royal family website, then. It says there at least twice that when Prince Charles becomes King, it's intended that she'll be known as HRH Princess Consort. I assume they know as well as you do what the government has said on the matter, yet they're still maintaining that this is the case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:58 PM
sara1981's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Little Rock, United States
Posts: 3,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
You should take that up with the webmaster of the official royal family website, then. It says there at least twice that when Prince Charles becomes King, it's intended that she'll be known as HRH Princess Consort. I assume they know as well as you do what the government has said on the matter, yet they're still maintaining that this is the case.
i would agree with Elspeth!

because Camilla cant become Princess of Wales! because many people cant acceptance Camilla as POW but i tell you many times about that i told members about Camilla cant become POW since Diana got become Princess of Wales since her marriages to Prince Charles in 1981-1996 but Diana would known as Diana,Princess of Wales and Camilla will known as Duchess of Cornwall and if Charles will become King of England Camilla will known as Princess of Consort! but how my feelings between Diana and Camilla?

Sara Boyce
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
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?
The Tory Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, was very strongly opposed. Winston Churchill seemed to be in favour, but it isn't clear whether he was motivated by a romantic desire to see love conquer all, an ethical feeling that Edward was being ill treated, or a mischievous impulse to be a thorn in Baldwin's side.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-10-2005, 11:59 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
I found some articles who show the debates who too place during the engagement period. I thought it would be interesting to produce them.

Quote:
Charles relies on rights law he despised to validate marriage
By Tom Baldwin and Frances Gibb February 24, 2005
TImes Online

Lord Chancellor announces that wedding is legal but lawyers still warn of challenge

THE legality of the Prince of Wales’s wedding plans were declared to be “beyond doubt” last night under a law that he once denounced as leading to “the stultification of human relationships”.

In an emergency parliamentary statement, the Lord Chancellor sought to quash fears of a gathering constitutional crisis over whether the Prince is allowed to marry Camilla Parker Bowles in a civil ceremony.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced that the Government was satisfied that the wedding was legal in accordance with the Marriage Act of 1949. But, even as he dismissed the alternative views taken in the past as overcautious, lawyers insisted that the couple are still at risk of a legal challenge to the validity of the union and that the Government should clarify existing legislation.

The Lord Chancellor said: “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 and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination. This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.”

The Lord Chancellor’s decision to cite the Human Rights Act in aid of the royal wedding is a sharp contrast to the spat between his predecessor and the Prince four years ago over the same piece of legislation.

In a June 2001 letter to Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Prince said: “The longer-term effect of the Human Rights Act will be to provide opportunities which . . . will only encourage people to take up causes which will make the pursuit of a sane, civilised and ordered existence ever more difficult.” He voiced dread about the development of an American-style personal injury culture that “can only lead, ultimately, to the stultification of human relationships, to an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, let alone the real fear of taking decisions that might lead to legal action”.

The Prince added: “Too little is being done to stem the remorseless obsession with rights without there being any corresponding requirement or obligation.” The letter was leaked in September 2002.

At least one government figure privately asked last night if, in view of the Prince’s own “human relationships”, he had since changed his mind about the Act.

Lord Falconer is among a group of ministers who harbour doubts about the long-term future of the monarchy, but has helped to clear the way for the Prince’s wedding. Publication of his advice came amid speculation that fresh legislation might be needed for the wedding — due to be held at Windsor Guildhall on April 8.

Lord Falconer said his statement had been issued “in the light of recent interest in the law surrounding royal marriages”. Aides emphasised later that they expected it to be the final word on the issue.

However, Sir Nicholas Lyell, QC, the former Attorney-General, suggested yesterday that the Lord Chancellor’s arguments were flawed. He said there was still a need for the Government to introduce a short Bill to clarify the legality of the forthcoming marriage.

“The Lord Chancellor’s statement at least clarifies the Government’s thinking, but I fear that responsible lawyers will still regard the argument as rather tenuous,” he said.

“The Human Rights Act, 1998 does help, but it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs when the legality of the marriage of the Prince of Wales has to depend on that.”

David Pannick, QC, an adminstrative law expert, said yesterday that a legal challenge to the wedding would put the Prince in court where he would have to rely on the Act to defend his position. He said the law was still not clear. “It would be far better if the Government clarified this by legislation. If they can pass legislation to tackle suspect terrorists in four days, then there is no reason to think they can’t pass legislation on the validity of the marriage of the heir to the throne.”
Quote:
Prince and Camilla marriage 'legal'
Feb 20 2005 Ananova

The Lord Chancellor has defended his view that the Prince of Wales' forthcoming marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles will be legal.
Lord Falconer's comments follow debate over whether the couple's civil marriage is permissible under current legislation.
Some experts claim the present law does not allow civil marriages for members of the Royal Family in England.
But Lord Falconer said: "I remain confident that the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles can marry in a civil ceremony. We have considered every aspect of this and taken all the appropriate advice."
He told the Mail on Sunday that the 1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages, did not exclude the Royal Family as the 1836 Act had done.
"We have been very thorough and are confident we have got it right. We wish to put no bar in the way of the Royal Wedding," he said.
Sources at Clarence House said the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles had received legal advice from four different sources. A spokeswoman said: "We are very confident that the advice received from the Government was correct. Comprehensive consultation had already taken place before the announcement was made."
But Dr Stephen Cretney QC, Emeritus Fellow of Legal History, Oxford University, last week cast doubt over the legality of a civil marriage any member of the Royal Family in England.
He told a BBC Panorama investigation: "There is no statutory procedure whereby members of the Royal Family can marry in a register office. Although there may be this ceremony and public rejoicing, it could be the Prince of Wales is not married and Mrs Parker Bowles is not his wife and constitutionally it's important to know whether they are married or not."
The April wedding venue was last week changed from Windsor Castle to the Guildhall in Windsor amid concerns that licensing the royal palace would cause too much disruption. The blessing afterwards will still take place in the Castle's St George's Chapel.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-11-2005, 12:01 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
The Tory Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, was very strongly opposed. Winston Churchill seemed to be in favour, but it isn't clear whether he was motivated by a romantic desire to see love conquer all, an ethical feeling that Edward was being ill treated, or a mischievous impulse to be a thorn in Baldwin's side.
From what I know about Churchill, I would choose the last option :p ...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-11-2005, 12:08 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
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.
It's not quite as easily dismissed as that. At the time it was taken seriously enough that the Lord Chancellor issued a statement about it after legal advice was sought from several prominent lawyers. There was some disagreement among constitutional lawyers whether the 1949 or 1953 Act had actually repealed the 1836 Act or not. The last few paragraphs of his statement suggest that the matter was by no means cut and dried, at least until he'd made his decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4291337.stm
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-11-2005, 08:43 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
You should take that up with the webmaster of the official royal family website, then. It says there at least twice that when Prince Charles becomes King, it's intended that she'll be known as HRH Princess Consort. I assume they know as well as you do what the government has said on the matter, yet they're still maintaining that this is the case.
The key word is "intended". There is no doubt in my mind this means "it will never happen" because of the unprecedented nature of the legislation required to allow Camilla to assume a style and title different than Queen Consort. In my opinion, it is simply PR on the part of the Palace to assuage public feelings at this time.

Camilla will be Queen Consort.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-11-2005, 08:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
It's not quite as easily dismissed as that. At the time it was taken seriously enough that the Lord Chancellor issued a statement about it after legal advice was sought from several prominent lawyers. There was some disagreement among constitutional lawyers whether the 1949 or 1953 Act had actually repealed the 1836 Act or not. The last few paragraphs of his statement suggest that the matter was by no means cut and dried, at least until he'd made his decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4291337.stm
Yes, but the point is the matter was exhaustively investigated and Parliament, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were all in agreement that the 1953 Act superseded the 1836 Act and applied to the royal family as well.

Given the agreement of legal precedents by Parliament and the Queen's approval of the marriage under the Royal Marriages Act, it was a foregone conclusion that Charles and Camilla had the right to marry in a civil ceremony.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:53 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I'm also quite sure that Camilla will end up being Queen Consort.

However, I think people can be reasonably forgiven for reading that statement and assuming that "intended" means what it says on the surface. The definition of "intended" as "it will never happen" is one of the more marginal ones, to put it mildly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:59 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Yes, but the point is the matter was exhaustively investigated and Parliament, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were all in agreement that the 1953 Act superseded the 1836 Act and applied to the royal family as well.
However, I think the point being made here is mostly that there were some questions raised at the time, they were legitimate questions, and the resolution in favour of the legality of civil marriage for royals was not (in purely legal terms) a foregone conclusion. After all, in 1937 it was claimed that it was perfectly legal to deprive the Duchess of Windsor of the HRH title, and that's been shown to have been a dubious legal claim that was made more for the sake of expediency at the time than for any general reason. I think there are some people who, rightly or wrongly, are seeing the same standard applied here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-11-2005, 12:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
However, I think the point being made here is mostly that there were some questions raised at the time, they were legitimate questions, and the resolution in favour of the legality of civil marriage for royals was not (in purely legal terms) a foregone conclusion. After all, in 1937 it was claimed that it was perfectly legal to deprive the Duchess of Windsor of the HRH title, and that's been shown to have been a dubious legal claim that was made more for the sake of expediency at the time than for any general reason. I think there are some people who, rightly or wrongly, are seeing the same standard applied here.
I understand your point and, of course, given the unwritten constitution of the UK and the use of legal precedents to determine the law, these things can always be argued in constitutional theory. However, I do not think the question of a civil marriage for Charles and Camilla was unclear, given the existing acts and the right of the Sovereign under the Royal Marriages Act to approve any marriage of a member of the royal family. Given the position of the Crown, as advised by the Government, there can be no question that an affirmative consent of the Sovereign is definitive in these matters.

Comparisons to the HRH issue of Wallis is not valid. Firstly, the King issued letters patent, obviously with the consent of the Prime Minister, specifically depriving her of the style. While the legal validity was clearly shaky, we must remember there is no question the Sovereign, as the fount of honour, can deprive or confer any titles and honours since such things represent the Crown.

Although it was clear the Duke was HRH Prince Edward under all letters patent, the King had the right to issue new letters patent depriving him of all titles and styles or issuing a new title. This was his right as Sovereign. However, since the King had clearly permitted his brother to remain a prince of the UK with the style of HRH, his letters patent "reconferring" the style of HRH to him, but not to Wallis or his descendants, was invalid.

The Duke was already HRH by right and his wife was entitled to share his rank, unless the King issued letters patent depriving HIM of the style and title. However, it is also clear that the King DID deny Wallis the rank of HRH and princess of the UK in his letters patent, which he could certainly do as the Sovereign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-12-2005, 09:33 PM
dianafan's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mol, Belgium
Posts: 127
To be there in United Kingdom still real fans of princess Diana or is them already forget????
__________________
[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=3][COLOR=DarkRed]Diana queen of our hearts forever!
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-24-2005, 02:23 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Don't worry Dianafan, I am here in the USA, and I won't forget and I am sure many others won't either.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:35 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 8
Diana's Title

She will most likely be known as Diana, Princess of Wales unless when William becomes king and makes her a princess in her own right then she will be called HRH The Princess Diana.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 778
How could anyone - any queen or king - change the title of a DEAD person? At best she would be a «post mortem» princess of her own and that would be a bit ridiculous.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:46 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerRoyalHighness
She will most likely be known as Diana, Princess of Wales unless when William becomes king and makes her a princess in her own right then she will be called HRH The Princess Diana.
Titles cannot be conferred on the deceased and this will never happen. She died as "Diana, Princess of Wales" and nothing else.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:50 AM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerRoyalHighness
She will most likely be known as Diana, Princess of Wales unless when William becomes king and makes her a princess in her own right then she will be called HRH The Princess Diana.
That is what I believe will happen when William ascends the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:52 AM
MoonlightRhapsody's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Garden Grove, United States
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Don't worry Dianafan, I am here in the USA, and I won't forget and I am sure many others won't either.
I second the whole statement!
__________________

__________________
*~* In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock. *~*
*~* Judge not those who try and fail. Judge those who fail to try. *~*
Sweden's Picture of the Month Represenative
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 haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:45 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]