The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 11-05-2014, 03:52 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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
I certainly would not wish to dismiss what you are saying and could only add that as things stand today, the Human Rights Act has been legally interpreted to cover members of the royal family and as such, enables Charles and Camilla's marriage to be legal (and apart from anything else they have a marriage certificate to prove it!). Accordingly, the royal marriage is as legal as anyone else's.

Nonetheless, the situation today as described above does not prevent someone challenging the interpretation of the Human Rights Act and only if they were successful could the royal marriage be deemed to be illegal.
It won't be Baron Lyell because he is now dead and I am sure someone would have tried to challenge it by now after all these years.
__________________

__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 11-05-2014, 03:57 AM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
I hope someone does conduct a poll and it is overwhelmingly positive for Queen Camilla.
The poll conducted in June 2014 was positive. It was posted by Lee-Z.

53% for Queen Consort and 32% for Princess Consort.

Lee-Z, I also could not find anything on Yougov to support the Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail article did not have a link to the poll.

The poll timing seem strange as the question was asked in June of 2014 & January of 2014.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 11-05-2014, 08:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
I certainly would not wish to dismiss what you are saying and could only add that as things stand today, the Human Rights Act has been legally interpreted to cover members of the royal family and as such, enables Charles and Camilla's marriage to be legal (and apart from anything else they have a marriage certificate to prove it!). Accordingly, the royal marriage is as legal as anyone else's.

Nonetheless, the situation today as described above does not prevent someone challenging the interpretation of the Human Rights Act and only if they were successful could the royal marriage be deemed to be illegal.
It won't be Baron Lyell because he is now dead and I am sure someone would have tried to challenge it by now after all these years.
I'm not actually disputing whether their marriage is legal because that's above my pay grade but what interests me is the issue of Princess Consort. From a legal point of view the only reason Camilla can't be Queen is if her marriage isn't valid for whatever reason.

I think its fair to say that Charles has received conflicting legal and constitutional advice from ministers over the years. Yes Lord Falconer says it legal but others say it isn't.

We will never know what was said behind closed doors because the records have been sealed until after Charles's death. Then Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked a Freedom of Information request to make public the advice given to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer before he gave the wedding the go-ahead.

So we don't know what Lord Falconer based his opinion on nor do we know what negative views were offered.

Maybe Charles isn't 100 percent confident that if challenged his marriage would stand because it strikes me as bizarre that if this was purely an exercise in PR it would have ended years ago. Why keep up this line of Princess Consort unless there is some other fly in the ointment.
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 11-05-2014, 08:31 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I'm not actually disputing whether their marriage is legal because that's above my pay grade but what interests me is the issue of Princess Consort. From a legal point of view the only reason Camilla can't be Queen is if her marriage isn't valid for whatever reason.

I think its fair to say that Charles has received conflicting legal and constitutional advice from ministers over the years. Yes Lord Falconer says it legal but others say it isn't.

We will never know what was said behind closed doors because the records have been sealed until after Charles's death. Then Justice Secretary Jack Straw blocked a Freedom of Information request to make public the advice given to the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer before he gave the wedding the go-ahead.

So we don't know what Lord Falconer based his opinion on nor do we know what negative views were offered.

Maybe Charles isn't 100 percent confident that if challenged his marriage would stand because it strikes me as bizarre that if this was purely an exercise in PR it would have ended years ago. Why keep up this line of Princess Consort unless there is some other fly in the ointment.
There have been 3 Prime Ministers, two of which were from opposite ends of the political spectrum. If any of them thought the legality of the marriage of the PoW was an issue, I am sure the issue would have been brought up. I just do not think your contention about the legality of the marriage of C&C is valid at all.
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 11-05-2014, 08:40 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 449
I don’t think the point of princess consort isn’t that Camilla isn’t queen. Because she will be. As far as I know they choose the title princess consort because of Diana and people’s perception of Charles’ second marriage. The fact that Camilla wants to use the title princess consort doesn’t make her less of a queen. She merely chooses to use a different title. As far as I’m concerned (not that I have any say in the matter) she can choose whatever title she wants.
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 11-05-2014, 08:59 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
So Charles wants his wife to be the only consort in British history not to be Queen. To me that doesn't pass the smell test. If its not the marriage then its something else big but the contention that somehow Camilla doesn't care about titles or doesn't want to be Queen is rubbish imo .
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 11-05-2014, 09:34 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
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.
If the marriage is not legal, then why was it held in and performed by representatives of the government? It is legal or it wouldn't have happened in England.

Thanks for your post.
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 11-05-2014, 09:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,194
A new YouGov poll just out has only 16% of Britons wanting a Queen Camilla. 46% say she should be Princess Consort.
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 11-05-2014, 09:53 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
What I don't like is the seemingly cavalier attitude towards Camilla being Queen. When William decides to spend Christmas with the Middletons people pull their hair out as if the future of the monarchy depends on him being at Sandringham and yet here we have C&C thumbing their noses at hundreds of years of tradition and common law because of some PR stunt. I just don't get it
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 11-05-2014, 10:06 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
William has nothing to do with this thread. You think their wedding was a PR stunt??? I can't stop laughing.
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 11-05-2014, 10:11 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
Camilla taking the title of Princess Consort is a PR stunt.
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 11-05-2014, 10:27 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
I can't figure out whose side you are on. Which would be your preference, Queen Consort C. or Princess Consort C.
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 11-05-2014, 10:32 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
Camilla taking the title of Princess Consort is a PR stunt.
In a sense, but I don't think it's without serious concerns. Camilla may just not want all the sturm-und-drang from the Diana-Fans. There may also be some sensitivity to family members - like Diana's sons. Pure speculation, of course. I cannot know, nor can anyone, but I trust that the decision was not taken lightly. That it has to do with Diana seems obvious, but maybe there are other reasons we will never know.
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 11-05-2014, 10:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
@Kitty Atlanta: Queen of course. I think its ridiculous for anyone including Charles to suggest otherwise. He should just take his lumps and state unequivocally Camilla will known as Queen Consort
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 11-05-2014, 10:38 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,126
I agree most heartily.
__________________
Yes, I said it. No, I won't apologize. Yes, I will say it again.
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 11-05-2014, 10:50 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,332
Camilla And The Public

The Diana issue with the Princess of Wales versus using Duchess of Cornwall made sense at the time.

The whole Princess Consort title seems unnecessary to make at the time of the marriage. Why comment?
No one knows when Charles will become King so to make statement then seems silly. The atmosphere at the time of the wedding and now is completely different and in 5 yrs it will be more different.

Legally as soon as Charles is King, Camilla is Queen. Charles would have to issue a LP to create Camilla as Princess Consort but she is still Queen even if she uses the Princess Consort title or goes by Mrs Mountbatten Windsor.

The question is what does Charles and Camilla actually want? I don't see the government at the time of the Queen's death forcing the issue. If Camilla actually wants not to be know as Queen, is she not going to get crowned at the coronation?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 11-05-2014, 11:49 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,931
Skippyboo asks a very pertinent question - won't Camilla be crowned as Queen Consort at the coronation? Well, ever since the Princess Consort announcement was made, i have always felt that she would not therefore be crowned during the coronation ceremony. Whatever the legal status is - and I agree for all intents and purposes she will be queen - it seems rather messy to crown her Queen Consort but be known as Princess Consort.

For the record, I would rather she were to be known as queen when the time comes, it makes no sense to call her princess consort. I never minded Duchess of Cornwall in deference to Charles' first wife, that was a nice gesture.

The bottom line is that I do not think one should tinker with things that don't need tinkering - whatever the polls may or may not say, the general public hate tinkering!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 11-05-2014, 12:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The Diana issue with the Princess of Wales versus using Duchess of Cornwall made sense at the time.


Legally as soon as Charles is King, Camilla is Queen. Charles would have to issue a LP to create Camilla as Princess Consort but she is still Queen even if she uses the Princess Consort title or goes by Mrs Mountbatten Windsor,
There are no statutes regulating the title of the monarch's consort AFAIK. We cannot assume then that Camilla will be automatically queen consort when Charles becomes king.

Furthermore, her future title does matter in practice. If she is titled "queen", she will be referred to as "Her Majesty" and princes/princesses of foreign royal houses who are H.R.H's will have to bow/curtsy to her. If she remains "princess consort" only, she will be just an H.R.H. and, most likely, won't get any bow/curtsy from continental crown princes/princesses, with the possible exception of Mette-Marit, who seems to curtsy to everybody (even president Obama and CP Mary of Denmark !).
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 11-05-2014, 12:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,389
The title Queen Consort is enshrined in Common Law. When a woman marries man she takes his rank and status. So to have HRH The Princess Consort goes against hundreds of years of Common Law and implies an unequal marriage and common law works on precedent. It has always been the wife of a British King shall be Queen.

In the absence of an Act of Parliament we apply Common Law and that law says she is a Queen.

That's how it been explained to me
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 11-05-2014, 12:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,079
This is absolutely the case Rudolph,

Without specific LP there is no other title for the wife of a king to hold in the UK..other than Queen.
__________________

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
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 gothia cup grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style ingrid alexandra kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy movies new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles 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 queen rania casual outfit royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza 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 05:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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