The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 07-25-2008, 12:41 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon View Post
Yes, it's necessary. However how often do we witness the civil ceremony of an heir to the throne?
Then perhaps you should have stated "British Royalty". Not meaning to beat a dead horse here but having been soundly "thrashed" at various times for not completely writing out my thoughts (we are not mindreaders, after all ) I want to spare you the anguish I have dealt with thinking I inadvertantly was rude to someone or that I did not clarifiy my thoughts and some persons were offended or confused and a little bit of a back and forth, ahem, "discussion" ensued. Just an FYI, Brandon! I've really enjoyed your posts, BTW
__________________

__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 11-08-2008, 09:04 PM
Emeralds and Opals's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: *****, United States
Posts: 582
Secret documents cast doubt on legality of Charles's wedding | Mail Online
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 11-08-2008, 09:20 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Boring, The Libs come out with this story time and again, especially when yet another of their candidates has lost his deposit in a local byelection. What they seem to be forgetting is that they fully support the European Human Rights bill, under whose legislation permission had to be granted, or does the legislation only apply when they want it to?
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 11-10-2008, 10:05 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Very interesting. Of course, they HAD to have a civil wedding because of the divorce issue. I quote 'Life with the Queen' page 51 "But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could be arranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment' (my bolding). So if the civil wedding was not legal, then they are not legally married? It will be interesting when that book comes out. As for the story coming out time and again...where there's smoke.....
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 11-10-2008, 10:15 AM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hannover, Germany
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
Boring,
Coudln´t agree more... and surely it isn´t a pure accident that this ´news´ returned again only some days before Charles´ 60th birthday...but this repeat every half year does not make it more true or more interesting or it isn´t filled with more substance this time...
__________________
´We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we don´t get this right, how will they ever forgive us?´
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 11-10-2008, 10:33 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by milla Ca View Post
Coudln´t agree more... and surely it isn´t a pure accident that this ´news´ returned again only some days before Charles´ 60th birthday...but this repeat every half year does not make it more true or more interesting or it isn´t filled with more substance this time...
Quite right.

So if what has been said is true: they can't marry in church, and they can't marry in a civil ceremony - so how does it matter to most of us. They were hardly expected to produce any royal bastards, were they!
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 11-10-2008, 11:07 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Very interesting. Of course, they HAD to have a civil wedding because of the divorce issue. I quote 'Life with the Queen' page 51 "But contrary to Palace rumours at the time, Dr Williams was not approached by Prince Charles to see if a church wedding could be arranged. Charles knew that would be a non-starter and the Archbishop would be bound to refuse, so he spared him that particular embarrassment' (my bolding). So if the civil wedding was not legal, then they are not legally married? It will be interesting when that book comes out. As for the story coming out time and again...where there's smoke.....
No, they didn't have to have a civil ceremony, where did you say you had read that, (not the Lib Dem handout surely)?

While Hoey may be an interesting read, I do have to wonder what evidence he gives to back up his statement regarding Rowan Williams likely decision on a question he wasn't asked or Charles' knowledge of Rowan Williams likely thoughts.

Once again, it seems to have been missed, you cannot have legislation in regard to everyone except XYZ, that is not legal under British or European legislation.

Where there's smoke, does that apply to all ex royals as well?
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 11-10-2008, 11:15 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by milla Ca View Post
Coudln´t agree more... and surely it isn´t a pure accident that this ´news´ returned again only some days before Charles´ 60th birthday...but this repeat every half year does not make it more true or more interesting or it isn´t filled with more substance this time...
They probably hadn't even realised about Charles birthday!

For those to whom it might be important they marry in church (which church, which religion), (the Lib Dems perhaps), easy, a full blown ENGLISH ceremony as soon as Charles takes over, but before the coronation, a huge taxpayer funded ceremony!
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 11-10-2008, 10:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,582
Where did I read it? In the book cited. On the page cited. The book you knew the author of, which I did not mention. To answer your question, Brian Hoey, according to the bio on the jacket "has been a writer, journalist and broadcaster for more than 40 years. Known as a respected and autoritative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the Royal Family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers andmagazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These incluse The Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and Her Family, Prince William, and Snowdon" This in NOt Kitty Kelly.

Elspeth, this is exactly my point. When a book has been exhaustively vetted by the publisher to avoid law suits, and a TRF member responds with 'what evidence did he give', what is the official position of this forum on what is considered to be an authentic/reliable/quotable source? Because there really isn't much point in researching the information if the response is going to be 'Was there a statement from the Palace? If not it's an urban legend'.
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 11-11-2008, 12:31 AM
Princess Eudoxia's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz, United States
Posts: 7
Why wouldn't they have married in church if it wasn't a problem? Especially as Charles is going to be head of the Church of England. Wasn't the civil service seen as a middle ground, so to speak?
Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 11-11-2008, 12:41 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
No, they didn't have to have a civil ceremony, where did you say you had read that, (not the Lib Dem handout surely)?
In England they probably did. They could have married in Scotland like Princess Anne, but the CofE guidelines on remarriage of divorced people do seem to frown on remarriage to someone who was instrumental in the breakup of the first marriage. Even though a lot is left to the judgement of the particular clergyman, it would look a lot like special treatment for Charles to be able to do something that most Britons wouldn't be able to do, and that wouldn't have helped his popularity in the least.

Quote:
While Hoey may be an interesting read, I do have to wonder what evidence he gives to back up his statement regarding Rowan Williams likely decision on a question he wasn't asked or Charles' knowledge of Rowan Williams likely thoughts.
Maybe someone who has a copy of the book could tell us if there are footnotes to that effect. I might have a copy somewhere but I'm not sure which pile of books to start looking in.

Quote:
Once again, it seems to have been missed, you cannot have legislation in regard to everyone except XYZ, that is not legal under British or European legislation.
I thought there was a law (which has apparently been superseded by later legislation) which specifically excluded the royal family from being able to contract a civil marriage. Apparently when the law was drafted nobody gave any thought to the possibility of a royal being an atheist and not wanting to marry in church.
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 11-11-2008, 01:02 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Where did I read it? In the book cited. On the page cited. The book you knew the author of, which I did not mention. To answer your question, Brian Hoey, according to the bio on the jacket "has been a writer, journalist and broadcaster for more than 40 years. Known as a respected and autoritative chronicler of royal events, he has interviewed several members of the Royal Family for radio and television and has had many articles on royalty published in newspapers andmagazines world wide. He is the author of numerous books on maritime and royal history. These incluse The Royal Yacht Brittania, Anne: The Princess Royal, The Queen and Her Family, Prince William, and Snowdon" This in NOt Kitty Kelly.


Elspeth, this is exactly my point. When a book has been exhaustively vetted by the publisher to avoid law suits, and a TRF member responds with 'what evidence did he give', what is the official position of this forum on what is considered to be an authentic/reliable/quotable source? Because there really isn't much point in researching the information if the response is going to be 'Was there a statement from the Palace? If not it's an urban legend'.
I don't know that we have any really authoritative biographies of this period of the Prince's life. Brian Hoey seems to be a reputable royal biographer but I don't think he's authoritative enough that if he says one thing and other people are saying the opposite, you can necessarily say that he's right and they're wrong. In this case you can just, as you've done, point to the evidence in his book to back up your opinion, but if someone else comes up with a royal biography saying that Charles consulted Dr Williams about a church wedding, it's going to be one person's word against the other's unless Charles or Dr Williams make a statement about it.

The scenario could have been anything from Charles knowing because Dr Williams had told him without being asked to Charles knowing because he or the Queen had made discreet and indirect enquiries. The Church is fairly clear on not wanting to get involved in a situation where a man wants to marry a woman with whom he was having an affair during his previous marriage - on the other hand, the previous Archbishop is on the record as saying that Charles and Camilla should marry, so apparently Dr Carey at least thought a wedding of some sort would be possible, although he could have been thinking about a wedding in the Church of Scotland (the solution Princess Anne came up with for her second marriage).
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 11-11-2008, 03:38 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,940
The Problem with the Church of England and indeed the laws of this country is that it says one thing then does something completely different. If the CoE is against remarriage by divorcees then equally it should be against the blessings of marriage by divorcees. It is legal in this this country for people to contract a civil marriage ceremony and quite simply that is what Charles and Camilla did. Unless the Act of Settlement specifically states that an heir to the throme cannot marry A) a divorcee or B) in a civil ceremony or there is sufficient law to prevent an heir from marrying under such circumstances then the tabloids should button up! I would have thought the heir to the throne could do whatever he likes - if it's good enough for the people then its good enough for him!
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 11-11-2008, 03:56 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
The Act of Settlement didn't cover civil marriages because they didn't exist back then. It wasn't till the Marriage Act of 1836 that civil weddings were allowed, and the royal family was specifically excluded.

There's some information about it here, in an article written by the Lord Chancellor:

Department for Constitutional Affairs - Speeches - Parliamentary Statements

It says that the 1836 Act contains the statement that the Act ""… shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family".

According to that article, the 1836 Act was repealed by the 1949 Marriage Act and the 1953 Registration Service Act; the 1949 Act contains the wording, "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family."
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 11-11-2008, 04:20 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
You're right Elspeth, but what Skydragon meant was that as soon as the UK accepted European Human rights laws as supreme laws, this part about the exclusion of a group of people due to their birth was void. especially as the background of the statement is religiously motivated and thus is in conflict with the right to choose your religion.

I think it is absolutely clear that Charles could have gone to the European Courts with his case if he was not allowed to marry legally in a non-religious ceremony and that he would have won and be granted permission. But that would have really opened the said "can of worms" - what about prince Michael and the others who lost their place in the succession due to marrying Catholics? What about the Act of Settlement? What about the fact that the Headship of State in Britain is governed by inheritance, so excludes the majority of people?
If parliament and government really started to deal with these topics according to the European laws, it could lead to serious consequences noone knows about beforehand. And who wants that when all they wanted in the first place was to allow a man to marry the woman he chose?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 11-11-2008, 06:05 AM
Laurentienne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ....., Norway
Posts: 256
I have absolutely no respect for Charles what so ever, and they never should have married. He has married a mistress and they are both cheap in every way possible. I don't even see them as royal even though they are. It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on. I still don't respect them, and I'm happy that they are not next in line for the throne in the country I live.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 11-11-2008, 06:08 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Where did I read it? In the book cited. On the page cited. The book you knew the author of, which I did not mention---snipped---
The advertising for books is designed to sell the author enough to make you want to buy the book, as for Hoey, I did not question his works (although you seem to have chosen to view it as such), but how he could possibly know a persons thoughts on a question that he says was never asked.
Quote:
Elspeth, this is exactly my point. When a book has been exhaustively vetted by the publisher to avoid law suits, and a TRF member responds with 'what evidence did he give', what is the official position of this forum on what is considered to be an authentic/reliable/quotable source? Because there really isn't much point in researching the information if the response is going to be 'Was there a statement from the Palace? If not it's an urban legend'.
Lets get away from the misquoted 'was there a statement from the palace, if not it's an urban legend', that you seem to state so often. Is there actually anyones post, other than yours that says that? In your post, which I was questioning, you did not make clear where you were quoting from the book or your own beliefs and that, to me is important.

Publishers, as I am sure you know, only check whether they can be prosecuted under certain laws, with the responsibility laid at the feet of the author, otherwise you are suggesting that every single non fiction book is fact and that would be rather amusing.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 11-11-2008, 06:15 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurentienne View Post
---snipped---It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.
Good to know that you don't rely on little things like facts or knowing them!
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 11-11-2008, 07:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurentienne View Post
I have absolutely no respect for Charles what so ever, and they never should have married. He has married a mistress and they are both cheap in every way possible. I don't even see them as royal even though they are. It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on. I still don't respect them, and I'm happy that they are not next in line for the throne in the country I live.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.
I am the exact opposite.

I respect Charles and Camilla for the loyalty and love they have shown each other in very trying times. I respect them for the way they have conducted themselves as a royal couple. I absolutely love the way Camilla has behaved as the wife of the heir to the throne - so right in every way - supportive of her husband and never trying to upstage him.

I am just so glad that he is the heir to the throne where I live.

As for his son - I will become a republican the day he becomes King.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 11-11-2008, 08:13 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
I have absolutely no respect for Charles what so ever, and they never should have married. He has married a mistress and they are both cheap in every way possible. I don't even see them as royal even though they are. It doesn't mater that I don't know them at all, and that I don't know the whole story behind what has happened all these years between Charles and Diana, Charles and camilla and so on. I still don't respect them, and I'm happy that they are not next in line for the throne in the country I live.

I hope Charles will step down and let William be the next king when time comes.
That's i call a tempered comment... Thanks a lot for this lesson of forgiving and understanding

I see you're from Norway....Fortunately your own Crown Princess has a perfect and spotless background
__________________

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





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 dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece josephine-charlotte kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week pierre casiraghi portugal prince bernhard prince charles princess charlene outfits 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 mathilde's daytime fashion 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 fashion 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 10:04 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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