The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 10-20-2007, 10:58 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Poor Caroline of Brunswick didn't she die a couple of days after that.
__________________

__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 10-20-2007, 11:35 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
George IV's coronation was 19 July 1821 and Queen Caroline died 7 August.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 10-20-2007, 03:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,033
"The Earl of St Andrews isn't an HRH. If he can't in a register office in England, that starts eliminating an awful lot of people (probably at least in the thousands) who happen to be distant descendants of monarchs."-Elspeth

In response to the above, I don't know how far out a relative you have to be for you to still be considered a member of the Royal Family in the eyes of the law. The point is that Lord St. Andrews, at the time of his marraige in 1988, was advised to go to Scotland because he was considered close enough to the throne for it not to be legal for him to marry in a register office in England. So why come 2005 were we informed, by SOME quarters, that this wasn't the law at all whilst others maintain that it was and still is? Whether some people like it or not the legality of Prince Charles' marraige is not an open and shut case. There are and always will be doubts hanging over it but these are likely to be voiced more openly when he and Camilla are dead.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:21 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Church law and thinking was different in 1988 - 19 years ago.

In 1988, I think you would have been hard pressed to find any clergyman willing to conduct a church wedding for any non royal couple where one party was divorced. To add to that problem, horror of horrors, she was a divorced catholic!
I would imagine that being catholic, she was keen to have a religous ceremony of some sort and that was not going to happen in England.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,033
I am not talking about Church law I am talking about secular law-thee law- in relation to the legality of civil marraiges in England and Wales involving members of the Royal Family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:34 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
It is possible that he was not 'advised' of anything. After all I haven't seen a statement to that effect from him, his parents, BP or any governmental body. If you have a link?....

What did strike me as strange, was that in Scotland he could have had a church wedding and chose not to.

As, by marrying a catholic, he was giving up his place in the line, would there have been any need to stop him marrying in an English registry office, which throws further doubt onto the 'he was advised'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:45 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,033
When he married in Scotland the media/news reports at the time all said that it took place there because he couldn't legally marry in a registry office in England. I know this because I live in Scotland and I watched the news reports about the wedding.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:51 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
When he married in Scotland the media/news reports at the time all said that it took place there because he couldn't legally marry in a registry office in England. I know this because I watched the news reports at the time and as I've stated in a previous post the book "My Young Friends" by Valerie Garner also confirms this.
So no actual official statement on this, just media hype and an author. As far as I know, the laws covering registry offices and the conditions needing to be met are exactly the same as in England. It is only the churches that differ in that respect.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,033
There was no media "hype" as I recall, the fact that he couldn't legally marry in England was reported as a matter of circumstance with no sensationalism attached to it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 10-20-2007, 05:01 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
However, the 'he was advised' only seems to stem from what was reported and as we all know, may not be fact.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 10-20-2007, 05:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,033
"Feet stuck in mud" is how I am starting to feel about this thread. For those of you who don't want to face up to the fact that Charles and Camilla's marraige is seriously questionable in the eyes of the law carry on as you will. For those of you who are willing to accept that there are serious doubts do a little research and I bet it won't take you long to discover the anomalies regarding it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 10-20-2007, 05:51 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
With respect, whether the marriage is questionable or not is very old news. They are married, they are members of the Royal Family and I can't see how a few posts on a forum is going to change that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 10-20-2007, 06:06 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
"Feet stuck in mud" is how I am starting to feel about this thread. For those of you who don't want to face up to the fact that Charles and Camilla's marraige is seriously questionable in the eyes of the law carry on as you will. For those of you who are willing to accept that there are serious doubts do a little research and I bet it won't take you long to discover the anomalies regarding it.
There are indeed anomalies. The entire situation was an anomaly, nobody doubts that. The Lord Chancellor said it was legal. Therefore, the legality is intact. The opinions of others in that matter are quite irrelevant.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 10-20-2007, 06:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
There is one law that people are forgetting that was passed between 1988 and 2005 - the European Human Rights law.

That is the one that I believe was used to change the interpretation of the legality of Royal Weddings in Registry offices.

Under the original 1836 and then subsequent 1949 Marriage Acts a royal wasn't legally married if married in a civil ceremony. Those acts applied in 1988 when the Earl of St Andrews was married.

However the later Human Rights Act of 2000 changed things.

To quote from Lord Falconer's official text to the House of Lords when this was raised at the time of the wedding:

"The Lord Chancellor, in a written statement to the Lords, said that he was giving details of his legal view, 'in light of recent interest in the law surrounding royal marriages.'

Dipping in and out of the 1936 and 1949 statutes, he waited until the end of his statement to pull the Human Rights Act from the legal canon as a final weapon.

'We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted whereever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marriage (article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (article 14)', he said.

'This in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 act beyond doubt.'"

This was taken from The Guardian article published at the time:
Human Rights Act to the rescue of wedding | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited


There were some people after that who still believed that a short piece of legislation was needed but that didn't happen because the legal advice to Parliament and therefore to the Queen and Archbishop of Canterbury was that the marriage was legal.

All objections to the marriage were dismissed by the Registrar.

Thus the marriage is legal and people who can't see that are the ones with their heads in the sand.

Other papers reported the same thing at the time: That the Human Rights Act with it specific mention of the right to marry and that legislation must be interpreted that way along with no discrimination (which raised an interesting point to me - could that be interpreted that the religious ban on Catholic marriage and the succession is discriminatory and therefore under the Human Rights Act no longer applies??)

If you wish to see other links referring to the story about Charles and Camilla I have included a few other links.

BBC NEWS | UK | Registrar allows Charles' wedding
The New York Times > International > Europe > Prince Charles Postpones Wedding to Attend Funeral
BBC NEWS | UK | Is Royal wedding a human right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 10-20-2007, 10:06 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
In response to the above, I don't know how far out a relative you have to be for you to still be considered a member of the Royal Family in the eyes of the law. The point is that Lord St. Andrews, at the time of his marraige in 1988, was advised to go to Scotland because he was considered close enough to the throne for it not to be legal for him to marry in a register office in England.
Your source being?

I've just read the report of the marriage in Majesty Magazine, and it said no word about problems with the legality of register office weddings in England. I assume that if this was something that had been reported in the press at the time, it'd have found its way into the Majesty article.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 10-23-2007, 09:19 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Trumbull, United States
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
She was refused entry into Westminster Abbey by order of The King, but he lost his battle with Parliament to strip her precedence and title as Queen Consort.
Thank you. I could have looked it up myself LOL - I have since
__________________
Monaco Forums
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 10-23-2007, 09:28 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
{comment about deleted post removed - Elspeth}
As for the marriage, I just wanted to say that I saw a recent photo of Charles and Camilla http://i23.tinypic.com/eg7oti.jpg and they both look so relaxed and at ease with each other. I can't really recall seeing Charles like that with Diana except when the boys were quite young; you can tell Charles and Camilla really get on well. It's a nice sign for normal women, when you think about it. Here he is, the Prince of Wales--had Diana, arguably one of the most dynamic and beautiful women of the century, and he was miserable. Camilla, a charming and lovely lady in her own right, is his one true love, because she is who she is and her personality is straightforward and true. I like her more than I liked Diana because Camilla seems to be more real to me, and Diana was more like an illusion.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 10-23-2007, 12:31 PM
Picmajik's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 161
Smile other general church information

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
THANK YOU! That was very interesting reading and I learned alot.
The Church of Scotland is also what we in the US know as Presbyterian as opposed to the CoE which is Anglican/Episcopalian in the US. Some churches will call themselves the Anglican community in America to let you know they are closer to the CoE instead of the more liberal branches of the American Episcopal church. I am not a member of either but have been researching both as I am considering joining either one in the future (but that is a long story for another board and not relevant to this topic). I hope this helps, diamondBrg.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 10-23-2007, 11:45 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I've split out the "do British taxpayers think the monarchy is worth keeping?" discussion to its own thread, which you can find here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/monarchy-worth-keeping-14557.html

Let's please keep this thread on topic from now on.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 10-23-2007, 11:53 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
With respect, whether the marriage is questionable or not is very old news. They are married, they are members of the Royal Family and I can't see how a few posts on a forum is going to change that.

I wasn't aware their marriage was questionable. Being an American, I'm not familiar with the way marriage and re-marriage in the royal family is dealt with. That being said, I do agree with you. They're married, I haven't heard anything about there being issues with it, so it is how it is.
__________________

__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
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 bourbon-parma 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 genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess 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 marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:04 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]