The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 12-09-2008, 08:07 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The royal family, its various trials and tribulations, and its stance on moral issues only reflects social mores today - and that is somethign we are largely comfortable with.
The British Royal Family doesn't move with the times in all things but the situation with Edward and Margaret had a direct impact on the Queen as a person and so would be more likely to change her attitude if she or someone she loved dearly was impacted.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 12-09-2008, 02:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Constitutionally, the Crown is compelled to accept the advice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. If the Government signals opposition to The Sovereign's activities, whether personal or government related, The Sovereign must act accordingly.

This is the basis of a constitutional monarchy in which The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule. If Edward VIII hadn't voluntarily abdicated the throne, Parliament would have passed legislation removing him as King after the Government resigned in protest. He had no choice but to step down.
If constitutionally the Crown is compelled to accept advice from the PM or cabinet how come in 1956 when the then Lord Chancellor (the highest legal officer in the land) advised the present Queen to agree to the abolition of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 as it was a 'total anachronism', she refused.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 12-09-2008, 02:58 PM
georgiea's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
The British Royal Family doesn't move with the times in all things but the situation with Edward and Margaret had a direct impact on the Queen as a person and so would be more likely to change her attitude if she or someone she loved dearly was impacted.
The Queen changed her mind because Prince Charles wanted and loved The Duchess of Cornwall. It took a long time in coming and it was only after the Queen Mum died that she felt she could change her attitude..
__________________
Watch your actions, for they become your habits. Watch your habits because they become your character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 12-09-2008, 08:15 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiea View Post
The Queen changed her mind because Prince Charles wanted and loved The Duchess of Cornwall. It took a long time in coming and it was only after the Queen Mum died that she felt she could change her attitude..
I don't think that's the only reason. The Queen loved Margaret and knew Margaret loved Peter Townshend but that didn't stop her from saying no to the marriage.

But by the time Charles did marry Camilla, the Queen knew the effect that her earlier decision had had on Margaret so she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 12-10-2008, 01:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I don't think that's the only reason. The Queen loved Margaret and knew Margaret loved Peter Townshend but that didn't stop her from saying no to the marriage.

But by the time Charles did marry Camilla, the Queen knew the effect that her earlier decision had had on Margaret so she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make.
I must have tried about a dozen times to put that argument into words today and gave up - you have done it perfectly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 12-10-2008, 02:00 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,403
This might be the wrong place to pose this question. Well, it's about marriage, and it's about Charles and Camilla, so here goes.

Does the marriage of the divorced Heir Apparent to the Throne to a divorced woman set a new precedent for future Heirs Apparent, and indeed the whole royal family, present and future? Now that this has occured, how can it be inadmissible for, say, Prince William, or Prince William's son to marry a divorced woman? Doesn't this mean that the divorce stigma is broken?
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 12-10-2008, 02:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
I don't see a problem at all any more.

In the past, society had a negative attitude to divorced people whereas today with so many people being divorced the entire social stigma has changed so I don't see a problem.

If heirs apparent to other thrones can marry divorcees (or annulled first marriages or whatever the case in Spain) or women with a child out of wedlock as in Norway, why shouldn't the heir apparent in Britain (Charles) marry a divorced women or his heir apparent (William) also marry a divorced women along with future royals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 12-10-2008, 02:47 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,325
I believe the problems people in former times had with divorcees in general is that if the - according to Christian belief - god-given unity" of a married couple is broken through divorce, the divorcees have shown that they are capable of breaking holy laws which of course made them into people not to be trusted at all levels: if they did it once, they might do it again and again and not only when it comes to marriage...These views of society and the people have changed. They saw that even the notorious Duchess of windsor could stay true to her husband while their very own princess Margaret couldn't. They've seen it in their own families that not to be able to live with another person for a whole life does not necessarily mean that the divorced person is evil or not able to live according to the wedding vows with another person.

I think it was this growing understanding of human nature which WW2 forced on us that changed the attitudes of people. Today the idea of the god-given "unity" of two people on marrying is not longer the only way to view marriage. Much more people nowadays accept that it can be as well the bond two independant people decide to form with each other, which of course is solvable if life doesn't turn out as one had wished. And with that changing attitude, people feel more comfortable around divorcees.

That's why I think second wifes are more accepted than fourth, because you can once have made a mistake and chosen better for the second time, but once you're through the acqauintance of three spouses already, it doesn't make sense to form a deeper attachment to a new person in your circle which might be gone as fast as she/he arrived on scene.

I believe Charles and Camilla have shown the world that their marriage really is something reliable, that Camilla is there to stay and that's what a lot of people wanted to be sure about before accepting her.
__________________
'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
  #469  
Old 12-10-2008, 03:20 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
The British Royal Family doesn't move with the times in all things but the situation with Edward and Margaret had a direct impact on the Queen as a person and so would be more likely to change her attitude if she or someone she loved dearly was impacted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
I don't think that's the only reason. The Queen loved Margaret and knew Margaret loved Peter Townshend but that didn't stop her from saying no to the marriage.

But by the time Charles did marry Camilla, the Queen knew the effect that her earlier decision had had on Margaret so she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make.
My view is that the reason that the Queen agreed to Margaret's divorce was that it was very acceptable in British society by the late 1970s, compared to the postion in the 1950s when she wanted to marry Townsend. As you rightly point out, the Queen was not averse to making a difficult decision when it came to family members, so I believe the key reason she agreed to the divorce was not that "she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make" but because she felt that society had changed enough to accept divorce.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 12-10-2008, 03:35 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,459
I wonder if HM would have agreed to Charles & Camilla marrying if Margaret was still alive?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 12-10-2008, 03:50 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,108
Perhaps the "social stigma" has changed, but the negative fallout on people's lives hasn't. A broken home is still a broken home, and children are still victimized. With wealthy people, there aren't as many financial problems after a divorce; but it's devastating on middle or lower-class people. Most of the children living in poverty are from single-parent families, at least in this part of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
In the past, society had a negative attitude to divorced people whereas today with so many people being divorced the entire social stigma has changed so I don't see a problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 12-10-2008, 04:27 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I wonder if HM would have agreed to Charles & Camilla marrying if Margaret was still alive?
No, there was no discussion of marriage while QEQM or Pss Margaret were still alive, though Mark Bolland was busy rehabbing Camilla's image.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 12-10-2008, 05:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
No, there was no discussion of marriage while QEQM or Pss Margaret were still alive, though Mark Bolland was busy rehabbing Camilla's image.

May I ask how you know that Charles and his mother never discussed the possibility of a marriage to Camilla? Unless you are one of these two people I simply don't believe that anyone can possibly make that comment as there are times when the two people are alone and what is said then would not necessarily be told to other people.

I can actually invision a scenario like this:

Queen and Charles walking in gardens at BP/Sandringham/Windsor/Balmoral alone and Charles turns to the Queen and says "Mummy, I really want to marry Camilla but I do know there are problems with Auntie Margaret having been stopped from marrying a divorced man and Granny being so opposed due to the events in 1936 but do you think there is ever a possibility?" Queen replies "Not at the moment but we might consider it if some circumstances change". That is all that needs to have been said (or something like that) for the matter to have not been raised anywhere officially until after the deaths of Margaret and the Queen Mother.

Now your statement that it was never discussed would mean that you have to be either Charles or The Queen to be able to categorically state that you know every private conversation that ever took place between these two people.

Sorry but I get so fed up with such blanket statements about what might have said between two people in private when they were the only two people were present to report what was said.

Whether a discussion such as the one outlined above as a possible scenario ever took place I don't know because I am not privy to the private conversations of these people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 12-10-2008, 07:13 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
My view is that the reason that the Queen agreed to Margaret's divorce was that it was very acceptable in British society by the late 1970s, compared to the postion in the 1950s when she wanted to marry Townsend. As you rightly point out, the Queen was not averse to making a difficult decision when it came to family members, so I believe the key reason she agreed to the divorce was not that "she was not so blind to the results that another refusal would make" but because she felt that society had changed enough to accept divorce.
I agree with you that the Queen took into account the social mores of the times; I simply think that in her later years, she started to factor the effect on her family into her decisions as well as paying attention to social conventions.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 12-11-2008, 07:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
No, there was no discussion of marriage while QEQM or Pss Margaret were still alive, though Mark Bolland was busy rehabbing Camilla's image.
I'm sure there was discussion with the courtiers all the time, although not necessarily between The Queen and Prince Charles. But that's the way the Household and Private Secretaries run the business of the monarchy.

There was no point in Charles broaching the subject directly with his mother until after The Queen Mother's death. She made it quite clear it was not an option while her mother was still alive.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 12-11-2008, 07:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaFay View Post
If constitutionally the Crown is compelled to accept advice from the PM or cabinet how come in 1956 when the then Lord Chancellor (the highest legal officer in the land) advised the present Queen to agree to the abolition of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 as it was a 'total anachronism', she refused.
That's not formal advice being tendered from The Prime Minister to the Crown on a constitutional matter. It must be formally presented in that way as being the majority opinion of the Government as represented in the Cabinet and Parliament.

The Royal Marriages Act was passed at the request of The Sovereign at a time when the Hanovers were making a disgrace of the monarchy with common law marriages and bastard children. The Act ensures that members of the family in-line to the succession understand they must seek approval to marry from the Crown, a standard practice in all royal houses.

There is sufficient provision in the Act for a member of the royal family to marry without approval, provided Parliament does not object. So why would The Queen want to repeal it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 12-11-2008, 07:59 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
I'm sure there was discussion with the courtiers all the time, although not necessarily between The Queen and Prince Charles. But that's the way the Household and Private Secretaries run the business of the monarchy.

There was no point in Charles broaching the subject directly with his mother until after The Queen Mother's death. She made it quite clear it was not an option while her mother was still alive.
When did she do this?

I want to know how we know what is said between these two people?

Was it ever raised? How would any of us know what was said between these people?

Is this more a matter of people making assumptions based on their perceptions of the attitudes of people, of the dating of events etc?

Unless we can ask Charles or the Queen themselves we can't be sure that this issue was not raised between them and what the Queen said in response.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 12-11-2008, 10:27 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,218
Forgive me...during my typing I omitted the word public in my earlier post...as in public discussion of the possibility of Charles marrying his divorced mistress while the Queen Mother was alive . I would find it very unlikely that QEII or the POW would have the *cough* nerve to bring up Charles marrying his divorced mistress with his grandmother who became Queen Consort for no reason except for the fact that Edward VIII was not permitted to marry his divorced mistress. Can you imagine being a fly on the wall for that discussion? Or for that matter the one with The Princess Margaret? Well I know I forbade you to marry Group Captain Townsend when you were 4th in line and told you that you would have to give up your place in the succession and any money from the Civil List, but now Charles has made Camilla Non Negotiable so were going to have to give in, let him be continue to be heir to the Throne and retain the $million income from the Duchy of Cornwall...sorry I screwed up your life.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 12-11-2008, 10:42 PM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
No one can say for sure what discussions took place between any of the parties involved during this time. All of this is complete speculation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 12-12-2008, 01:13 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
No one can say for sure what discussions took place between any of the parties involved during this time. All of this is complete speculation.
That is exactly my point:

We can't say whether any discussion did or didn't take place because none of us, as far as I am aware, are either Prince Charles or The Queen.
__________________

__________________
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 birthday bourbon-parma camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sheikh state visit wedding willem-alexander 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 01:30 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]