The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:14 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
To date, the COE will not re-marry divorcees that is why Charles had to marry Camilla in a register office.The problem wasn't with him as he is a widower but with her as the husband she married in the eyes of God still lives.
It will.

Here - again - Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003) | Church of England
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:15 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
For whatever reason, whether or not the C of E will marry 'some divorcees under some circumstances' the reality is that the C of E DECLINED TO MARRY CHARLES AND CAMILLA. They had to have a civil ceremony. Can anyone tell me why the church refused to perform the ceremony?
To use your capital letters.

The Church of England DID NOT decline to marry Charles and Camilla. Permission to marry in the church was never asked and therefore NEVER declined! Charles ( and his advisors) mindfull of the fact that he would become Head of the Church one day decided to go with the Church's prefered way of dealing with remarriage in the Anglican church. ( It's on the Church's website, feel free to inform yourself)

The Church's preferred way to deal with remarriage in the church is for the couple to have a civil wedding and followed by a church blessing.
This therefore was what Charles ( and his advisors) opted for.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:16 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
But doesen't that make their marriage morgnatic?
No. In a morganatic marriage, the wife wouldn't have shared her husband's titles. She'd have been given some lower title and wouldn't have had the HRH or any precedence in the royal family. And the Queen sure as heck wouldn't have lent her the Delhi Durbar tiara - the nearest thing to a crown among any of the tiaras - for her first formal event.

Morganatic marriage isn't recognised in British law. That's part of what made the treatment of the Duchess of Windsor so unfair.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:17 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhon11234 View Post
But doesen't that make their marriage morgnatic?
No, since Camilla is fully entitled to be styled as his wife, and any hypothetical children would be in the line of succession, etc. There is no legal concept of morganatic marriages in the UK, as Edward VIII found out in 1936. You're either fully married or you aren't. Charles and Camilla are.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:18 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
For whatever reason, whether or not the C of E will marry 'some divorcees under some circumstances' the reality is that the C of E DECLINED TO MARRY CHARLES AND CAMILLA. They had to have a civil ceremony. Can anyone tell me why the church refused to perform the ceremony?
Do you have a link to a statement from the CofE to that effect?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:18 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by cde View Post
But if Andrew dies before Charles and Camilla, they could be married in the church since then they would both be widowers.
Why would they get married twice? The church would have no reason to marry people who are already recognized as married by both the church and the law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:19 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by cde View Post
But if Andrew dies before Charles and Camilla, they could be married in the church since then they would both be widowers.
The Anglican Church recognises civil divorce, Charles did not remarry as a widower, if APB dies Camilla is not considered a widow.

Prior to their marriage the church considered BOTH as divorcees.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:33 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Why would they get married twice? The church would have no reason to marry people who are already recognized as married by both the church and the law.
No, I dont have a link to an official statement, however, they were in fact, married in a civil ceremony (with or without an official link), the first member of the british royal family to ever do so., in defiance of the marriage act. What possible reason would there be for the future supreme head if the Church of England to marry in a civil service, knowing that it opens the door to constitutional isssues, if the option was open for a church wedding that would 'grease the wheel' when it comes to coronation time? There is no way that they 'chose' to have a civil service. It makes no sense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 10-06-2007, 10:46 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
No, I dont have a link to an official statement, however, they were in fact, married in a civil ceremony (with or without an official link), the first member of the british royal family to ever do so., in defiance of the marriage act. What possible reason would there be for the future supreme head if the Church of England to marry in a civil service, knowing that it opens the door to constitutional isssues, if the option was open for a church wedding that would 'grease the wheel' when it comes to coronation time? There is no way that they 'chose' to have a civil service. It makes no sense.
Why need anything be "greased" come coronation time? The coronation will happen. That's one benefit of the church being established, a proclamation by the King commanding them to do it has legal effect.

Oh, and the Marriage Act you speak of went out of force in 1949. The Lord Chancellor of the day assured that. As the chief legal authority in the realm at the time of the wedding, I would take his word over anyone else's.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 10-06-2007, 11:06 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
No, I dont have a link to an official statement, however, they were in fact, married in a civil ceremony (with or without an official link), the first member of the british royal family to ever do so., in defiance of the marriage act. What possible reason would there be for the future supreme head if the Church of England to marry in a civil service, knowing that it opens the door to constitutional isssues, if the option was open for a church wedding that would 'grease the wheel' when it comes to coronation time? There is no way that they 'chose' to have a civil service. It makes no sense.
The same reason, presumably, that Camilla chose to be called HRH The Duchess of Cornwall when she could have called herself HRH The Princess of Wales. Prudence and sensitivity to public opinion.

It seems as though the royal family took legal advice about whether a civil ceremony was legal for a member of the royal family and were told it was. Remarriage in church after a divorce is a relatively new thing, and I don't think it's something the Church is probably thrilled about but is trying to move with the times. They're unlikely to have wanted a high-profile remarriage like this one being celebrated in church or it'd have put a lot of pressure on the clergy who prefer not to celebrate such marriages. Which is another possible reason.

Since nobody involved said anything about it, we don't know the exact reasons. However, as long as the Church didn't go public with a statement saying that Charles and Camilla were ineligible for marriage within the church, I don't think it's appropriate to put words into their mouth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 10-07-2007, 06:11 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
The Anglican Church recognises civil divorce, Charles did not remarry as a widower, if APB dies Camilla is not considered a widow.

Prior to their marriage the church considered BOTH as divorcees.

this is exactly what i was going to say. in the CoE, do the consider them to be widow/widower?
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 10-07-2007, 01:31 PM
cde cde is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Marina del rey, United States
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
The Anglican Church recognises civil divorce, Charles did not remarry as a widower, if APB dies Camilla is not considered a widow.

Prior to their marriage the church considered BOTH as divorcees.


I could be wrong on Charles as a widower point. But I do remember reading a few articles around the time of the wedding that basically said it was was a pity Andrew wasn't dead they would have been able to marry in the church then. Also they would be able to marry in the church when after Andrew died.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 10-07-2007, 01:35 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by cde View Post
I could be wrong on Charles as a widower point. But I do remember reading a few articles around the time of the wedding that basically said it was was a pity Andrew wasn't dead they would have been able to marry in the church then. Also they would be able to marry in the church when after Andrew died.
Good God, can you imagine the hysterical conspiracies that would have been trotted out if APB had died! Seriously, I have never understood why Charles didnt take a page from Princess Anne and re-marry in Scotland, where presumably such things are ok?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 10-07-2007, 02:45 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
this is exactly what i was going to say. in the CoE, do the consider them to be widow/widower?
The CoE considered Charles to be a widower, Camilla as divorced. If APB had been dead, then as far as I know Williams would have offered the full gubbins. I know of a woman who having divorced and remarried, received a visit from the canon, to tell her that as her former husband had died, she could now become a full member of the church once again! Her reply is unrepeatable!

The CoS has no such objections to divorced couples remarrying in church.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 10-07-2007, 03:12 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
For the non-Brits among us, CoS = Church of Scotland. Their more liberal attitude toward remarriage of divorced people is the reason why Princess Anne's second wedding took place in Scotland.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 10-07-2007, 07:11 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
The CoE considered Charles to be a widower, Camilla as divorced.
that's interesting. why is it they consider him to be a widow even though diana was deceased? do they not recognize divorce?
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 10-07-2007, 10:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
No, since Camilla is fully entitled to be styled as his wife, and any hypothetical children would be in the line of succession, etc. There is no legal concept of morganatic marriages in the UK, as Edward VIII found out in 1936. You're either fully married or you aren't. Charles and Camilla are.
Unfortunately, the letters patent of 1937 did make The Duke's marriage morganatic, since both his wife and any children were denied the right to share his rank and title.

Once that precedent was created, it could happen again in the future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 10-07-2007, 11:15 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Unfortunately, the letters patent of 1937 did make The Duke's marriage morganatic, since both his wife and any children were denied the right to share his rank and title.

Once that precedent was created, it could happen again in the future.
The marriage wasn't what did that, however. That was simply an exercise of the Sovereign's prerogative as fount of honour. It would have only been a morganatic marriage if the Duchess would have had no right to her husband's style even in the absence of the clause in the Letters Patent. Since the Duchess was able to take her husband's title (she was still the Duchess of Windsor, just not HRH the Duchess of Windsor), it means that marriage was very unmorganatic.

The debate on whether that could even be taken away from Wallis hinged on whether or not Edward still fell under the Letters Patent granting the style of Royal Highness to children of the sovereign and sons of sons of the sovereign. They eventually decided, for the sake of being able to do what they wanted, that he didn't.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 10-07-2007, 11:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
She married HRH The Prince Edward, a son of the Sovereign, and should have automatically become HRH The Princess Edward under the 1917 Letters Patent and British common law. The effect of the letters patent issued in 1937 was to deny Wallis royal rank and grant her the style of the wife of a non-royal Duke, which she was not.

That is a morganatic marriage in every sense of the word.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 10-08-2007, 12:24 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
She married HRH The Prince Edward, a son of the Sovereign, and should have automatically become HRH The Princess Edward under the 1917 Letters Patent and British common law. The effect of the letters patent issued in 1937 was to deny Wallis royal rank and grant her the style of the wife of a non-royal Duke, which she was not.

That is a morganatic marriage in every sense of the word.
Except for in the legal sense, which it wasn't. Any hypothetical male first-born child would have became the 2nd Duke of Windsor on Edward's death, which would be impossible in a true morganatic marriage.

The style of "Royal Highness" is given only at the pleasure of the Sovereign, whereas the style of peeresses is governed by common law. Had she still been styled "Wallis Simpson" after the marriage, it would be morganatic. If the Queen, tomorrow, were to issue letters patent cancelling the style of "Royal Highness" of all living wives, it still wouldn't make their marriages morganatic.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla, duchess of cornwall, marriage, prince charles, prince of wales


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





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 grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman palace pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix 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 elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia 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 11:26 AM.

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]