The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 10-08-2007, 06:20 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
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.
Charles isn't considered a widower by the C of E. Since the church recognises civil divorce, Charles was considered a single man again after his 1996 divorce. The church states that in its information on remarrying divorced couples. If a person is divorced then they are to be considered as single. So since the church considered him single, then he would not be a widower as at the time of his previous wife's death they weren't married. A single man can't be a widower.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 10-08-2007, 06:29 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
A single man can't be a widower.
Are you using "single" in a technical sense under some legislation or protocol or something? I would have thought that "single" just refers to a person's current status as married or not married. If a person was married but their spouse died, they are now single.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 10-08-2007, 06:39 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Are you using "single" in a technical sense under some legislation or protocol or something? I would have thought that "single" just refers to a person's current status as married or not married. If a person was married but their spouse died, they are now single.
my understanding is that if a person is married and their spouse dies, they are considered widow/widower however if they divorce they are considered single (unmarried) and if one of them dies they are not widow/widower. i think you're correct in saying that if they are married and one of dies they are single by virtue of the fact that their spouse is no longer living and they are free to remarry if they want.

the press refering to charles as a "widower" has always annoyed me a little as in the eyes of the law he was not married and therefore couldn't be a widower.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 10-08-2007, 06:39 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Are you using "single" in a technical sense under some legislation or protocol or something? I would have thought that "single" just refers to a person's current status as married or not married. If a person was married but their spouse died, they are now single.
The term 'single' here is in the context of a person who either has never been married or has had their marriage dissolved.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 10-08-2007, 06:50 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
after reading a biography of wallis recently, i thought that BP had no right to take the style away from her and technically she could have been called HRH. this always confused me...if technically one can use the style regardless of what BP wants, then why didn't the entitled recipient just go ahead and take the style. there must be more to the story than meets the eye.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 10-08-2007, 07:12 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well, I think the fact of the matter is that Wallis was entitled to use the HRH but this was illegally denied to her because it technically became a morganatic marriage. If there'd be no denial, she'd have been HRH The Duchess of Windsor and I assume, a Princess of the UK. The more you look into that, the more shaky it seems. For example, though she was denied HRH in Britain, did that apply to the colonies?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 10-08-2007, 08:12 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well, I think the fact of the matter is that Wallis was entitled to use the HRH but this was illegally denied to her because it technically became a morganatic marriage. If there'd be no denial, she'd have been HRH The Duchess of Windsor and I assume, a Princess of the UK. The more you look into that, the more shaky it seems. For example, though she was denied HRH in Britain, did that apply to the colonies?
Correct. A marriage to a son of the sovereign means you become a Princess and Royal Highness. If The Sovereign does not create a peerage for your husband, your style is HRH The Princess X.

Wallis was "Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor" which is the rank and style of a non-royal peer. If they had any children, they would have taken their style after their mother and become Lord/Lady Windsor, rather than the usual rank and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as grandchildren of George V.

Regarding protocol, when The Duke was appointed Governor-General of The Bahamas, the Secretary for Colonial Affairs sent a telegram to officials prior to their arrival stating The Duchess was not entitled to a curtsey and must be addressed as "Your Grace".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 10-08-2007, 08:16 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.
It would if their husbands remained HRH and Princes of the UK. The wives of Princes of the UK take precedence as Princesses, not as the wives of peers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 10-08-2007, 08:24 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
after reading a biography of wallis recently, i thought that BP had no right to take the style away from her and technically she could have been called HRH. this always confused me...if technically one can use the style regardless of what BP wants, then why didn't the entitled recipient just go ahead and take the style. there must be more to the story than meets the eye.
Their staff and close friends always addressed her as Your Royal Highness, but this was a personal courtesy to The Duke. When he was not present, Wallis generally asked people to address her as Your Grace, which was the proper form of address.

In their final years, it was said The Queen was willing to put the past behind them and issue new letters patent granting Wallis her rightful style. But The Queen Mother remained adamantly opposed and The Queen declined to revisit the matter.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 10-08-2007, 08:39 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
wow...i'm amazed that HM was willing to issue new letters, i'd not heard that before. i do remember reading about the staff calling her HRH. as the wife of a prince though, wouldn't protocol dictate that people curtsey to her?
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 10-08-2007, 10:43 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 39
Curtseys for the Duchess of Windsor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
wow...i'm amazed that HM was willing to issue new letters, i'd not heard that before. i do remember reading about the staff calling her HRH. as the wife of a prince though, wouldn't protocol dictate that people curtsey to her?

There were some people who curtseyed to the Duchess of Windsor because they wanted to please the Duke. Some did, some did not. Lady Diana Cooper did and some other English people did, but again it was to get points with the Duke.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 10-08-2007, 10:52 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
And of course, the Duchess was always HRH to their staff.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 10-08-2007, 11:34 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
It would if their husbands remained HRH and Princes of the UK. The wives of Princes of the UK take precedence as Princesses, not as the wives of peers.
Only by the grace of the Sovereign, however. It is the prerogative of the Queen, if she wants, to remove the styles and titles the wives have as Royal Highnesses and Princesses. She does not have the power, however, to make the Duchess of Kent anything less than the Duchess of Kent, for instance.

Morganatic marriages involve the denial of styles which one is entitled to. One cannot be entitled to the styles/titles of Royal Highness or Princess of the United Kingdom, as they are totally and completely the prerogative of the Sovereign.

Though the grant of peerages is the prerogative of the sovereign, the style of their wives, however, is not. Since Wallis was the Duchess of Windsor, and hypothetical children were not taken out of the succession for the Dukedom, their marriage cannot have been morganatic, as a morganatic marriage involves the denial of styles that are the wife's by right, not by the grace of the Sovereign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 10-08-2007, 01:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Wallis was unquestionably morganatic as Her Grace and a Duchess. She married a Prince of the UK and Royal Highness and should have automatically assumed the rank, title and precedence of her husband. The King denied her the style and title of HRH Princess of the UK in 1937.

Yes, she was Wallis, Duchess of Windsor as her style and title, but this was inferior to her husband. If they had children, they too would have held inferior rank as Lord X Windsor, instead of HRH Prince X of Windsor.

If that isn't morganatic (which was exactly what the German duchies and kingdoms used to do), I don't know what is. Anyone can be created a Peer, but not everyone becomes a Prince or Princess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 10-09-2007, 05:14 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post
Charles isn't considered a widower by the C of E. Since the church recognises civil divorce, Charles was considered a single man again after his 1996 divorce. The church states that in its information on remarrying divorced couples. If a person is divorced then they are to be considered as single. So since the church considered him single, then he would not be a widower as at the time of his previous wife's death they weren't married. A single man can't be a widower.
If he was seen as a single man after his divorce and Camilla a single woman, there would not have been any problem having a full church ceremony, which as we all know, there was.

The church may publish on it's site that any divorced person is treated as 'single' and that they recognise civil divorces, but in reality many of it's clergy refuse to perform a wedding ceremony if one or both parties were divorced.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 10-09-2007, 08:12 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,033
The legality of their marraige is another ambiguous element. Although we have been told that it is legal there are very respected legal minds who maintain it is not. I remember a couple of Professors of constitutional law from Oxford and Cambridge were on T.V. at the time of the wedding saying that it is not and never has been legal for a member of the Royal Family to marry in a register office in England and Wales. I remember not being surprised to hear them say that because when the Earl of St. Andrews married in Scotland the official reason was that it wasn't legal for him to do so in England. I have an old magazine from the 1980's as well in which Princess Michael said that was why she had her civil service in Austria. I often wonder if Prince Charles has been told what he wants to hear but when he and Camilla are dead the history books will judge that the marraige never was legal at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 10-09-2007, 09:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
The legality of their marraige is another ambiguous element. Although we have been told that it is legal there are very respected legal minds who maintain it is not. I remember a couple of Professors of constitutional law from Oxford and Cambridge were on T.V. at the time of the wedding saying that it is not and never has been legal for a member of the Royal Family to marry in a register office in England and Wales. I remember not being surprised to hear them say that because when the Earl of St. Andrews married in Scotland the official reason was that it wasn't legal for him to do so in England. I have an old magazine from the 1980's as well in which Princess Michael said that was why she had her civil service in Austria. I often wonder if Prince Charles has been told what he wants to hear but when he and Camilla are dead the history books will judge that the marraige never was legal at all.
The Earl of St Andrews married in a Registry office in Cambridge, that's in England. Princess Michael of Kent married in Austria because originally she wanted to get married in a church there, a connection with her Austrian aristocratic roots. But the catholic church ( which does not recognise civil divorce wouldn't grant her an annulment in time ) They had already organised a wedding date, Lady Helen Windsor was to have been their bridesmaid and Marie-Christine had bought a wedding dress. Since the annulment didn't come through in time they married in the registry office. Lady Helen had to be a witness and Marie-Christine ended up wearing her wedding dress at the party that was given for them much later in the UK. ( Eventually she got her annulment and she and Michael had a catholic ceremony in the UK but this was much later. It was important to her as it meant that she could receive Communion in the catholic church)

Before Charles and Camilla married, there was a legal challenge to their marriage but it was dismissed by the judges. Their marriage is legal, the constitutional experts have ruled on it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 10-09-2007, 09:11 AM
daisygoogles's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 123
Also, in relation to a royal marriage being legal or not, why would princess Anne have to marry in the Church of Scotland?
Was it to make it legal? Then how is the Charles camilla marriage legal?
It's all very confusing indeed
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 10-09-2007, 09:11 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
If he was seen as a single man after his divorce and Camilla a single woman, there would not have been any problem having a full church ceremony, which as we all know, there was.

The church may publish on it's site that any divorced person is treated as 'single' and that they recognise civil divorces, but in reality many of it's clergy refuse to perform a wedding ceremony if one or both parties were divorced.
The fact that it's up to individual clergy to decide whether or not to preform a church wedding for a divorced couple is also mention in the C of E's instruction to ministers in regarding the marriage of a divorce. Their wording is something like 'the individual minister can decide whether or not to perform a church wedding when a divorcee is wishing to remarry, mindful of the church's teaching on marriage" The instructions are quite elastic, the divorced person should be seen as single but then the minister can decide whether or not they will marry them. All bases covered!

The preferred option is for a minister to perform a blessing ceremony after the couple have married civilly. ( Basically present us with a fait accompli and we'll give you our blessing) The option that C & C went for.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 10-09-2007, 09:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by daisygoogles View Post
Also, in relation to a royal marriage being legal or not, why would princess Anne have to marry in the Church of Scotland?
Was it to make it legal? Then how is the Charles camilla marriage legal?
It's all very confusing indeed
Anne married in 1992 and she wanted a church wedding. The Church of Scotland allows divorced people to marry in the church. The Church of England didn't change their ruling until 2003, C & C married in 2005 and their marriage is legal as the constitutional judges have already ruled that it is before they got married.
__________________

__________________
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
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta leonor 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 pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris 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 queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:52 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]