The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 11-04-2014, 02:40 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,775
It isn't an election. A poll does not indicate what will happen. If a poll said the 65% of people asked wanted Harry to be King after Queen Elizabeth, is the government going to change the line of succession- no.

Also the wording of a question will influence a poll, was the question this versus that, yes or no, or opened ended.

Also if the royal marriages act is satisfied, how is a civil wedding not valid? Marriage is a civil agreement. A religious church wedding still needs a civil marriage license. Divorce is done thru the government not the church.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 11-04-2014, 02:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,276


Camilla can't become Queen because she's not legally married to Charles Telegraph Blogs
Quote:
A second Marriage Act was passed in 1949 and that contained a similar exclusion clause: "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family." On the face of it, that is pretty clear cut: the prohibition on members of the Royal Family getting married in civil ceremonies remained.

That was certainly the view of John Major's government. This was clear from a government briefing document circa 1996 that was uncovered by The Times under a Freedom of Information request. "Members of the Royal Family are excepted from the provisions of the Marriage Act of 1949, and their marriages in England and Wales must therefore be performed by Anglican clergy under either a Special or Common Licence," it stated.

This was also the view of Lord Lyell of Mary-yate, the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce. He raised doubts about the lawfulness of a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla in February, 2005 when they first announced their intention to marry.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:04 PM
Elenath's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 460
Apparently the government disagrees.

Quote:
"The Government are satisfied that it is lawful for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles, like anyone else, to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the Marriage Act 1949. Civil marriages were introduced in England, by the Marriage Act 1836. Section 45 said that the Act "... shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family". But the provisions on civil marriage in the 1836 Act were repealed by the Marriage Act 1949. All remaining parts of the 1836 Act, including Section 45, were repealed by the Registration Service Act 1953. No part of the 1836 Act therefore remains on the statute book. ...
Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:05 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,495
I think the public has embraced Camilla but I think the palace and Clarence House maintain the title of HRH The Princess Consort for Camilla for a reason. I think the titles of Her Majesty The Queen or HRH The Princess Consort is just fine.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
That's my point. Two different governments disagreed on the legalities. Maybe Charles doesn't know for 100 percent certainty if he is legally married.

Just because Tony Blair says it so doesn't mean it is. John Major's government said its illegal
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:14 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,339
Case law should be enough to provide that the marriage between Charles and Camilla is legal - many of our laws here are based upon case law. Provided that the Government's view that their marriage is legal has been properly instituted in one of the mechanisms enabling it to be legal then I cannot see that there is a problem.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,276
I'm not saying they aren't married just that reasonable people could argue the case if they wanted

Its obviously not cut and dry because many experts to this day say the marriage isn't legal
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:34 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I think the public has embraced Camilla but I think the palace and Clarence House maintain the title of HRH The Princess Consort for Camilla for a reason. I think the titles of Her Majesty The Queen or HRH The Princess Consort is just fine.
Princess Consort would be a demotion from her current title, wouldn't it? (Please, only UK people (and ILUVBertie) answer. I can see no reason why she shouldn't be Queen Consort.

Anyway, it was Camilla's decision to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. She could use The Princess of Wales if she were so inclined. I think this should show everyone what a fine woman she is, as there wasn't any foot stomping or chest thumping that accompanied the decision (well, Charles may have done some foot stomping, but I think Camilla was sort of "sure, I didn't marry him for the title, anyway.".
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:36 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,368
I'd love to see what the results would be in a poll where is was a case of should Camilla get the title Queen or end tradition by getting no title at all? I reckon its only because people keep offering up the Princess Consort thing that people support it so much. Give them a title / no title situation I wonder what the results would be.
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:42 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
I hope someone does conduct a poll and it is overwhelmingly positive for Queen Camilla.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I understand your point but, as I pointed out before, virtually every religion, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism prohibit adultery. So although 59.3% consider themselves Christian, there are people of other faiths who have may have a different point of view.
How many of the cited faiths you mention prohibit adultery for both men and women? I think it's just the girls who are punished, no?

Anyway, what's the problem, neither Charles nor Camilla will be "ruling" the people.

This is a new religion...Nutsism.
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 11-04-2014, 03:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,147
There is NO PROVISION in British law for a wife to be denied 'the rank and title of her Husband'. To alter that would be a major change, for it would have to apply to ALL married women [if applied to Camilla alone it would be discrimnatory, and subject to challenge under 'Human Rights' legislation].

Will the govt [of the day] really want to open that particular can of worms, in the immediate aftermath of the death of a much loved monarch, and at a time of near universal mourning ?

I really don't think so...
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 11-04-2014, 04:23 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,495
I think with Camilla conducting her royal life under the title 'Duchess of Cornwall' I think she's proven that she didn't need to be titled 'Princess of Wales' to support Charles and the monarchy. I think it should be perfectly fine for Camilla to go by HRH The Princess Consort in the future. If she end up being Her Majesty The Queen Consort, I think everyone should respect it.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 11-04-2014, 04:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 775
I am more worried about future wives than Camilla. It could be the end of all Queen consorts.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 11-04-2014, 04:53 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalistbert View Post
I am more worried about future wives than Camilla. It could be the end of all Queen consorts.
I really don't think so. No one is questioning Catherine's future titles or George's future wife titles. It's all about Camilla and her future title.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 11-04-2014, 05:00 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,775
Every wife of a King has been a Queen. Why create a lower title for Camilla? If she going to do the duties of a Queen, be the highest ranked woman in the land, she should be Queen.

It would be different if Camilla married Charles but didn't perform any royal duties and lived as a private citizen.

Also if you are going to argue morality because of the adultery, then neither Charles or Camilla or most of the previous Kings should be on the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 11-04-2014, 05:19 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,645
Don't forget that between John Major's government and 2005 there was a very important piece of legislation that changed the ground rules - The Human Rights Act.

That makes is clear that EVERYONE is entitled to be married. With that legislation the advice to the Major government becomes irrelevant as later legislation changed things clearly.

By 2005 it was the Human Rights legislation that allowed Charles to marry in a civil ceremony whereas before that legislation members of the royal family could only legally marry in a religious ceremony.
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 11-04-2014, 05:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,276
It is still only an opinion the Human Rights Act applies to the marriage of Charles and Camilla. It hasn't actually been challenged. I have the names of constitutional professors that say in 2014 the marriage isn't legal
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 11-04-2014, 05:30 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Every wife of a King has been a Queen. Why create a lower title for Camilla? If she going to do the duties of a Queen, be the highest ranked woman in the land, she should be Queen.

It would be different if Camilla married Charles but didn't perform any royal duties and lived as a private citizen.

Also if you are going to argue morality because of the adultery, then neither Charles or Camilla or most of the previous Kings should be on the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
It is my understanding that if the title of Princess Consort was to be created, it could only be done by creating Camilla, herself, as a princess of the UK in her own right. It would be comparable to HM creating the DoE as a prince of the UK in his own right.
__________________
In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 11-04-2014, 05:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,276
Lord Lyell of Mary-yate, the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce raised doubts about the lawfulness of a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla in February, 2005 when they first announced their intention to marry.

This is what prompted Lord Falconer to mention the Human Rights Act but again this is only Falconer's opinion and not a fact.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 11-04-2014, 06:03 PM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
This is what prompted Lord Falconer to mention the Human Rights Act but again this is only Falconer's opinion and not a fact.
But in the facts it works isn't it ? After the Human Rights act the C and c wedding is legit. So if an Act of Parliament says so, i don't think it's a mere opinion ?
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, public opinion


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





Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit birthday coel hen coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge europe fashion poll fashion poll december fashio poll fox news infanta elena outfit jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince charles prince felix prince joachim current events princess charlene fashion princess marie princess marie eveningwear princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mary style princess sofia queen elizabeth 90 birthday queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia suits queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen silvia september 2016 state visit succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara what ifs


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 12:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises