The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
The Human Rights Act doesn't explicitly say the marriage between Charles and Camilla is legal. That is the opinion of Lord Falconer, others just as learned such as the opinion of Lord Lyell of Mary-yate, the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce say it isn't lawful

Only a court can decide this
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
Rudolph..

Do you seriously think the High Court will judge the marriage of the Head of State illegal ?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
I'm just stating there are people out there that think the marriage isn't lawful. I first mentioned this as a reason behind why Charles continues on the Princess Consort line. Maybe he doubts the legality of his marriage
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:17 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
The Human Rights legislation says that everyone has the right to marry - that is clear.

The AG's opinion at the time of the divorce is irrelevant as that was BEFORE the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998. The situation today has to be viewed in the light of current legislation and not on the situation before that legislation. Before the legislation it was definitely not possible for Charles to make a civil marriage and so the AG at the time of the divorce was correct but that was in 1996 two years before the legislation was passed which changed the situation.

If you have names of constitutional experts who claim that later legislation doesn't override earlier one I suggest that they check their legal qualifications. There have been a number of marriage laws passed in the UK that relate to the royal family but none of them can take precedence of the Human Rights Act which is the latest act to relate to marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
Lord Lyell of Mary-yate gave his opinion in 2005 and he is more familiar with the Human Rights Act than anyone of us commenting on it
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
At the time of Lord Falconer's statement his view was vigorously contested by experts in family law and was widely regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the law that was typical of Tony Blair's government.
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
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.
Talk about skewing the poll results! ;-P
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
At the time of Lord Falconer's statement his view was vigorously contested by experts in family law and was widely regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the law that was typical of Tony Blair's government.
Yes, I remember this discussion clearly.
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 11-04-2014, 07:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
I'm just trying to find a logical explanation as to why Charles and Camilla don't want her to be Queen and the legality over the marriage comes to mind.

The official reason of Camilla doesn't "want" to be Queen isn't good enough. If she doesn't want to be Queen she shouldn't have married the Prince of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 11-04-2014, 08:01 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,367
It's not like you have children involved who may or may not be in the line of succession based on the legality of their marriage.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 11-04-2014, 08:06 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I'm just trying to find a logical explanation as to why Charles and Camilla don't want her to be Queen and the legality over the marriage comes to mind.

The official reason of Camilla doesn't "want" to be Queen isn't good enough. If she doesn't want to be Queen she shouldn't have married the Prince of Wales
Well it can't be the legality of the marriage because the marriage is legal. Admittedly the mechanism causing the marriage to be legal is not a solidly bound piece of legislation, but that is not unusual when instituting laws. Looking back, it would have been useful for the HRA to have stated that it covers members of the royal family, but the very lack of such wording allows fluidity in its interpretation either positively or negatively, which, again, is often found in British law.
No official reason was ever given concerning the Princess Consort title or indeed the Cornwall title. It was just stated that that would be the case. As such, the media - closely followed by the public - made their own minds up as to what the reason might be and no further word has ever officially been made about it.

I realise it is not quite good enough, but it will have to do I'm afraid!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 11-04-2014, 08:19 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,455
“It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.”

Whatever the reasons for this statement having been made- it was made and will be remembered- particularly if it is later shown to have been just meaningless words to be ignored. Presumably such a statement was carefully considered before it was made.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 11-04-2014, 08:57 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I think its clear Camilla's rehabilitation isn't complete or her numbers would be higher
Well, if Camilla needs "rehabilitation" for supposed sexual sin, we have to be fair and recognise that so too do Charles, William & Catherine, Harry, Andrew &, Sarah, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne & Tim, Peter & Autumn, Zara & Mike, Edward & Sophie . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
The DM article refers to a poll by YouGov, but if i try to find it on that website the most recent one on the topic is one from june where most people who were asked then said that Camilla *could* become queen

Camilla can become 'Queen', say public

bit confused now...
This poll is the result of the use of a selective, online poll, skewed to get a controversial result and thus sell more papers, or gain more online subscribers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
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...
No the government would not. But I think there are a whole bunch of whackos who would think nothing of throwing trash at Charles in a funeral cortege.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
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.
So am I because whilst no one in the BRF would go to the HRC or European Courts, there are definitely others that would. It would set a precedence that could definitely cause a ruckus.

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.
But being fair and logical, adultery is 'Sexual Sin' which would disqualify both his brothers, his sister and his heir and spare.

It is a point of peculiar interest to me that people, many of whom have never set foot in a church, mosque, temple or such, and have never studied the tenets of these faiths, can be so bloody minded and unforgiving.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Anglican I believe God forgives, so who am I that I should not. The faith teaches forgiveness and that should be the end of it. That it is not merely proves to me that the spirit of the inquisition, the witch finders and burners, is still a living breathing nightmare.

And, if that doesn't scare you nothing will.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 11-04-2014, 09:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
“It is intended that The Duchess will be known as HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.”

Whatever the reasons for this statement having been made- it was made and will be remembered- particularly if it is later shown to have been just meaningless words to be ignored. Presumably such a statement was carefully considered before it was made.
I totally agree.
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 11-04-2014, 10:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Talk about skewing the poll results! ;-P
No - KittyAtlanta is simply asking for people who know based on being governed by the laws of the country concerned.

I am assuming that I am being included due to the perception on here that I know a lot about these things (based no doubt on the fact that I have indicated in the past that I have researched at a high university level aspects of the British royal family, have friends of my father's who are constitutional experts, have friends who are involved at high levels within the Anglican Church).
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 11-04-2014, 10:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,221
I don't think the statement about Camilla being Princess Consort rather than Queen Consort was made casually. On the contrary. I believe it was made by Charles's advisers/ the 'grey men' at the Palace, simply because of Diana.

There was an unprecedented show of grief by the British public at her death as we all know.

(I am Australian-based but UK born and bred, have relatives there and often go back.)

I wandered about among the crowds in London in the days before the funeral and I have to tell you, as a monarchist, I found a bitterness about the royal family's treatment of Diana in the comments I overheard, and what was said about Charles and Camilla, that was certainly not pretty!

The reaction to Diana's death took the royal family by surprise and the shock reverberated through the Palace advisers. At the time of Charles and Camilla's marriage the Palace, I believe, remained cautious. Camilla would not be Princess of Wales. That title was too closely associated with Diana.

The title 'Princess Consort' was put forward, in my opinion, in the same spirit of caution. There are still many Britons, now getting older but still present in large numbers, who identified with Diana and dislike Charles and Camilla because of it. These tend to be females in their forties and fifties who perhaps married and had children at the same time as Diana, or who felt for her in her troubles.

It depends of course, on exactly when Charles is crowned. If it is in another another ten or so years, then the feeling against Camilla becoming Queen Consort may well be negligible. This is no doubt what Charles and his advisers will hope for.

If the Queen died tomorrow and Charles and Camilla were crowned King and Queen next year I doubt that there would be riots in front of Buckingham Palace because of it. However, there is still a sector of the British public remaining, who don't want Camilla to be crowned Queen because of the circumstances of Charles's first marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 11-05-2014, 12:28 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Charles opened the door to this. No one would have ever thought to not have a British Queen except for the fact Charles brought it up in the first place.

No one to blame but himself
I've always had the idea that this might have been at Camilla's request. I can't imagine Charles doing this, a possible slight, without Camilla being agreeable.

Camilla seems a very intuitive sort and not particularly wrapped up in titles. I, of course, don't know her but Camilla may have thought this was the best way to take on the role of Charles' wife, even in deference to Diana. Camilla is a mature woman with nothing to prove. This may have been her way of being sensitive to Diana, and even her step-sons' feelings. It suggests that she may carry her role as his wife when he is King in a different way, perhaps, too.

All speculation, of course, but it's always nested in the back of my mind that this is Camilla's doing, not Charles'. No matter which of them initiated this gesture, I think it's a noble thing. Good for them.
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 11-05-2014, 12:31 AM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
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.
But it could definitely set a precedent. Imagine if you will ... twenty years from now, the aged, much-beloved Princess Camilla, Princess Consort, who has gone above and beyond the expectations of even the highest-minded Briton -- and served the UK as well as any sovereign's consort could have dreamed to do. By this time, some of HM's subjects could even be expressing regret that Camilla was never allowed the honor of being known as Queen Consort.

The discussion of the day then becomes that for Catherine to be known as Queen Consort is somehow a slap in the face of Princess Camilla, so the court of public opinion convinces the "grey men" of the day to acquiesce and announce that Catherine will be known as Princess Consort, out of respect of the memory of Princess Camilla, consort to our most beloved King Charles III.

And so it continues ...
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 11-05-2014, 12:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,417
I'm not dismissing anyone's opinion but to say the Human Rights Act settles the matter of Charles marriage isn't accurate.

Nicholas Lyell, Baron Lyell of Markyate was the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce and he raised doubts about a civil wedding in 2005.

He is highly educated studying at Christ Church Oxford. Lyell trained with the firm associated with his stepmother's family, Walter Runciman and Co, and was called to the bar at Inner Temple in 1965

He served as both Solicitor General and Attorney General. If he has doubts then I don't think the matter is settled
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 11-05-2014, 02:57 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
But it could definitely set a precedent. Imagine if you will ... twenty years from now, the aged, much-beloved Princess Camilla, Princess Consort, who has gone above and beyond the expectations of even the highest-minded Briton -- and served the UK as well as any sovereign's consort could have dreamed to do. By this time, some of HM's subjects could even be expressing regret that Camilla was never allowed the honor of being known as Queen Consort.

The discussion of the day then becomes that for Catherine to be known as Queen Consort is somehow a slap in the face of Princess Camilla, so the court of public opinion convinces the "grey men" of the day to acquiesce and announce that Catherine will be known as Princess Consort, out of respect of the memory of Princess Camilla, consort to our most beloved King Charles III.

And so it continues ...
Not going to happen. We can't say for certain what the future will hold but there's no doubt in my mind that Catherine will not only go by the title HRH The Princess of Wales but later she will be publically known as Her Majesty The Queen when William is on the throne.

It's a whole different case for Camilla. I think she'll be very happy with either title though. Camilla's main focus is on the job she's wanted all along. She fully support and loves Charles no matter what.
__________________

__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, public opinion


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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
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 eveningwear crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events denmark duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel 2015 nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess marie princess marie daytime outfit princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess tatiana 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 gowns queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania 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 06:13 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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