Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
There were no acts of parliament required in the other realms in 1936 because the relationship between the countries was different in those days - they weren't separately the monarchs of the other realms.

All that was needed was the agreement of the PMs of the dominions - as they were then called. The colonies didn't even get a say.

The realms would have to also pass the legislation saying that she is not an equal to every other woman in their countries and as a woman I find that suggestion insulting to all women.
 
There were no acts of parliament required in the other realms in 1936 because the relationship between the countries was different in those days - they weren't separately the monarchs of the other realms.

All that was needed was the agreement of the PMs of the dominions - as they were then called. The colonies didn't even get a say.

That is not entirely accurate, to the best of my knowledge.
Under the Statute of Westminster passed five years before the abdication, a single Crown for the entire British Empire was replaced by Crowns of each individual Dominion. In essence, the countries gained full independence but remained in Personal Union of Crowns (a situation that exists, with a few changes, to this day).

Edward VIII's abdication had to be and was approved by each state of the British Commonwealth. Because only the Parliament of Australia was in session, while the others were in recess, the consent was given by the Parliament of Australia, as well as the Governments of other Dominions. The only exception was the Irish Free State, which used the opportunity to severe all ties to the Crown altogether. Edward VIII then gave his Royal Assent to those Acts, whereby they came into legal force and he became a mere The Prince Edward.
 
The fact is that even that the Statute of Westminster had been passed in London it hadn't been ratified in the dominions which is why they didn't have to pass legislation - Britain was still able to make those decisions - just as in 1939 the dominions didn't declare war separately but were automatically at war once Britain declared war, except for South Africa which had ratified that Statute by 1939. Australia ratified it in 1942.

Edward VIII couldn't give assent to any acts outside of the UK unless there in person as that was the job of the GG so he only signed the one act - the British act.
 
:previous:
While the parliaments of the dominions like Australia and New Zealand did need to ratify the Statute of Westminster, other dominions, such as Canada and Union of South Africa, did not: in the latter cases, the Statute was effective there the moment it was passed. This said, both Canada and South Africa did pass legislations related to the Statute of Westminster later.

One of the key passages of the Act states: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."

For the abdication to actually come into effect, consent of the Dominion Governments was required. In fact, the very text of the 1936 Abdication Act states that the Dominion of Canada consented to the Act under the Statute of Westminster, while Australia Union of South Africa and New Zealand gave their separate consent. In particular, the Parliament of South Africa formally gave its consent in February of 1937 through passage of the Abdication Act, while Canada passed the Succession to the Throne At 1937, which ratified the British Abdication Act. Ireland (the Irish Free State) passed the Executive Authority Act 1936, which dated Edward VIII's abdication to December 12 1936 - meaning he was King of Ireland a day longer than elsewhere.

The Royal Assent to His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 was indeed effective for the United Kingdom only; the moment Edward VIII gave the assent (or rather, when it was delivered on his behalf by Lords Commissioners), he was King no more.
 
Last edited:
I rather wish the BRF webpage would take out the note about the intention for her to be known as princess consort. It's not necessary and just keeps the issue if front of the world. It's an insult.
 
Actually Canada did in fact declare war separately from the UK. It was signed by Lord Tweedsmuir the then Governor General and later brought to England to be signed by the King of Canada. The Canadian Parliament was even called back to debate the declaration of war. It was done to stress the independence of Canada since the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Just because the UK was at war did not mean that Canada was automatically at war with Germany and later Japan, but perhaps Australia was different.
 
Last edited:
I rather wish the BRF webpage would take out the note about the intention for her to be known as princess consort. It's not necessary and just keeps the issue if front of the world. It's an insult.
I agree. Either make all future wives of Kings Princesses Consorts, or just stop that nonsense in regards to Camilla only.
 
For her to not be Queen Parliament has to pass legislation to strip her of the right of all wives to take the title and status of her husband.

Being Duchess of Cornwall is still taking the style and title of her husband as he is the Duke of Cornwall and has in fact had that title for longer than Prince of Wales.

A month or so ago someone mentioned the possibility of a COE leader declaring that Camilla deserves to be called Queen. The writer thought such a public declaration would resolve the issue. How would that work? Unofficially, I assume, but thought to sway public opinion? There remains the fact that the BRF and PoW websites still have to back out of the "Princess Consort" statements, unless they just disappear. Given the test "you never know" answers given by both Charles and Camilla around autumn of - I think it was 2010 - to the question, "will Camilla be Queen?" they have given the matter some thought.
Sometimes I think Charles' confusion about his occasional drastic misreading of cultural trends, especially when it comes to Princesses, still has his head spinning. He took a courageous and perhaps revolutionary step in marrying Camilla. I believe he's a great thinker, and she's incredibly admirable. If it were up to me, she'd be Queen of … okay, too far. Anyway, I think he's not quite sure what to do to keep both of them, and the Monarchy, safe.
The "test" of "how will people feel about Camilla being Queen?" is floated periodically, sometimes by polls, sometimes by CH, at the cost to some unsuspecting journalist: "Camilla Says She Still Doesn't Want To Be Queen", and we wait to see how many people write nasty comments following the article. But public opinion is fickle and odd, and to me, Charles' little weathercast in Scotland marked a change for him - and by extension for Camilla. Anyone who heard him say to her, "you don't have to, I promise", had to melt, just a little. Then he looked so proud on the balcony at the fly-past; it's hard to believe he would accept being crowned without her. I'd stay home. (Like I had a choice.) :)
 
Actually Canada did in fact declare war separately from the UK. It was signed by Lord Tweedsmuir the then Governor General. Just because the UK was at war did not mean that Canada was automatically at war with Germany and Japan, but perhaps Australia was different.

Once the Statute of Westminster was adopted, Canada, Australia and other dominions became fully sovereign states, equal with Britain - and not bound by any declarations of the latter. Canada's Prime Minister of the time Mackenzie King was adamant that a decision to enter war will be only that of Canada's and Canadians, and not influenced by London, He thus instigated debates in Parliament and after lengthy discussions, declared war on Germany on 9 September 1939 - 6 days after Britain.

Australia had similar path, although it declared war on Germany immediately after Britain, on 3 September 1936. It was, however, completely the decision of the Australian Government who was not bound by Britain's declaration of war. Australian Government explained their decision by the fact the country's interests were too closely linked to those of Britain and that Britain's potential defeat could have harsh consequences for Australia (most notably, threat from Japan was mentioned). Unlike Canada, where the decision to enter the war was somewhat controversial, the majority of Australians strongly supported their government's position.

I have to note though that some argued that since Britain's declaration of war was made in the name of their common Monarch, it might have meant all the Dominions automatically entered war as well. That viewpoint was not shared by the Dominions themselves, so it's moot.
 
We may have a common monarch but they reign as monarch of the UK and the monarch of Canada, different legal entities. That was why Canada brought its Declaration of War to be signed by George VI as King of Canada after it had already been signed by his Governor General in Canada. It stressed the point that the acts of the British monarch had no effect in Canada.
 
Hilda Thomas said:
When all is said and done, I do hope that Queen Elizabeth and Camilla are placing bouquet of roses on Wallis Simpson's tomb.

Wallis was in a different time. I see no reason for Camilla and especially not The Queen to lay bouquets on that grave.
 
They did that "Princess Consort" thing to quiet the hens when Camilla was marginally popular. Certainly not her lowest, but far from where she is today. The Queen is a strong believer in Polls. I think Charles has learned that this is a valuable tool from his mother. "Batten Down the Hatches when you are unpopular, and ride the wave when you are popular. ". That is how you survive for over a thousand years with 40 monarchs. Flowers to Wallis? Really people? Really?
 
But it is hypocrisy. Camilla and Wallis are no different. And, when Margaret wanted to marry Armstrong-Jones, she gave up what might have been happiness for her, I say might have, because no one can be certain, because it would cause her sister a problem. Same problem. Margaret and Wallis were many years apart. Charles would not negotiate. So, petulance won out. The Queen, either had standards or not. Her mother persecuted Wallis. So, sorry. You can't explain away the hyypocrisy. Now, I can understand each case and I have no trouble with any of the marriages, including Charles. He loves Camilla. To his credit he fought.
 
COUNTESS said:
But it is hypocrisy. Camilla and Wallis are no different. And, when Margaret wanted to marry Armstrong-Jones, she gave up what might have been happiness for her, I say might have, because no one can be certain, because it would cause her sister a problem. Same problem. Margaret and Wallis were many years apart. Charles would not negotiate. So, petulance won out. The Queen, either had standards or not. Her mother persecuted Wallis. So, sorry. You can't explain away the hyypocrisy. Now, I can understand each case and I have no trouble with any of the marriages, including Charles. He loves Camilla. To his credit he fought.

How are Wallis and Camilla the same?. Walllis had been divorced twice had a shady background to put it mildly had ties to the Nazis and Was seeing guy while she was saying the prince. I really don't know what Wallis has to do with this thread
 
I can certainly understand why Wallis is being brought up, but I think we have to remember that these are vastly different times we're living in with regard to opinion on these sorts of things.

As for the present situation, certainly the royal family has undergone a lot of change in the past couple of decades, and they've had to adapt a lot. At the same time, though, I think the monarchy needs to retain a certain level of tradition to survive. I think keeping the tradition of a king's wife being named queen (regardless of whether she's divorced or unpopular or whatever) is a good one to uphold. That's an overly simplistic interpretation of my views, but it's what they boil down to.
 
I don't at all have an issue with your opinion, I just don't believe it rational to be stereotyped for mine because it's the skapegoat of choice.

Needless to say, I come at it from a different view point and not one that harbours any ill prejudice towards the Duchess.
Perhaps you have explained in the past, but I would like to know why. Personally, I think Camilla has been treated unfairly in the press, but I wonder if she shouldn't be known as "Queen" for the same reason that Philip is not "King."

Now that the rules of succession have changed, wouldn't it make sense to also rethink the role of the monarch's spouse. If a Queen's husband shouldn't be King, I don't know why the King's wife should be treated differently.
 
I can certainly understand why Wallis is being brought up, but I think we have to remember that these are vastly different times we're living in with regard to opinion on these sorts of things.

Exactly. In 1936 divorced people were not even allowed at Court, now we have a situation where three of the current monarch's children are divorced as well as her sister. Divorce in the general population is much more common.

To deny Camilla her title because she is divorced and remarried (and that's the only genuine reason why it would happen) is not only insulting to her but tells all divorcees that they are second class people.

Thank you also to those of you who answered my question about the legislation in other realms.

But we seem to have wandered off topic again, sorry moderators.
 
Perhaps you have explained in the past, but I would like to know why. Personally, I think Camilla has been treated unfairly in the press, but I wonder if she shouldn't be known as "Queen" for the same reason that Philip is not "King."

Now that the rules of succession have changed, wouldn't it make sense to also rethink the role of the monarch's spouse. If a Queen's husband shouldn't be King, I don't know why the King's wife should be treated differently.

Oh, imagine the screams of horror from the Daily Mail if their beloved Kate were to be denied the title of Queen.
 
I absolutely agree! Becoming the Queen consort is NOT a popularity contest. It is on the condition of marrying a King. It does not matter whether the public likes her or not. Prince Charles loves her, married her and she should become Queen Camilla when the time comes.
 
Australia had similar path, although it declared war on Germany immediately after Britain, on 3 September 1936. It was, however, completely the decision of the Australian Government who was not bound by Britain's declaration of war. Australian Government explained their decision by the fact the country's interests were too closely linked to those of Britain and that Britain's potential defeat could have harsh consequences for Australia (most notably, threat from Japan was mentioned). Unlike Canada, where the decision to enter the war was somewhat controversial, the majority of Australians strongly supported their government's position.

Menzies did not 'declare war' at all. His statement was 'as a consequence we are at war' a very different thing.

In 1942 the new PM even backdated the declaration of war to 1939 when he had the Parliament ratify the Westminster Agreement.

Curtin's action was to retroactively declare war but Menzies didn't declare war because Britain had done so on our behalf.
 
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.
 
Perhaps you have explained in the past, but I would like to know why. Personally, I think Camilla has been treated unfairly in the press, but I wonder if she shouldn't be known as "Queen" for the same reason that Philip is not "King."

Now that the rules of succession have changed, wouldn't it make sense to also rethink the role of the monarch's spouse. If a Queen's husband shouldn't be King, I don't know why the King's wife should be treated differently.


I have indeed explained my position in the past and at length so you are more than welcome to research my posts on the matter.
 
Last edited:
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.
Very good point especially after having seen the wonderful 50's flick Young Bess about Queen Elizabeth I worth seeing!:flowers:
 
Wallis was in a different time. I see no reason for Camilla and especially not The Queen to lay bouquets on that grave.

As Wallis is buried at Frogmore (IIRC?), I believe her grave will be properly tended by HM's staff. That should be enough, really.
 
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.
Exactly my point. Now that a first born female may ascend the throne essentially means that the titles "king" and "queen" are equal. The idea that a woman automatically becomes submissive and is subjugated to her husband is old-fashioned and should be abolished.
 
The reasons behind a sitting Queen deciding NOT to have her husband be King are rooted in power. If he becomes King, she automatically (as Queen) becomes his subject which is insane since she became Queen through royal blood and her husband (ie - Prince Phillip would become King by nothing more than being married to her). The problem would end up being the power he would have over her.

I'm glad to see this issue addressed. As a young idealist I might have thought the same thing: why shouldn't the consort of a queen become king? In the 21st Century, especially if we are ready for girls to become monarch before their brothers, why not? But the two situations are drastically different. History has proven that women monarchs are at least as effective as men, but when a King and Queen in name, in a Judeo-Christian household, share rule, no matter whose birth takes precedence, the people have genuine reason for concern. In micro-kingdoms all over the world, battles rage every day about whether men or women are supposed to take charge of the home. In the larger world, biology rules, as does the King, just as he still does in the marketplace. Britain is wise.
 
Exactly my point. Now that a first born female may ascend the throne essentially means that the titles "king" and "queen" are equal. The idea that a woman automatically becomes submissive and is subjugated to her husband is old-fashioned and should be abolished.

Equal? Not a chance, in the bodies we have now. Have you seen a "traditional" wedding lately? There's plenty of need to shoot for the stars. But men still rule the world, and as a rule, this one should stand.
 
US Royal Watcher said:
Exactly my point. Now that a first born female may ascend the throne essentially means that the titles "king" and "queen" are equal. The idea that a woman automatically becomes submissive and is subjugated to her husband is old-fashioned and should be abolished.

Actually I think that when you have a reigning queen, like in GB and in other European countries. The queen is actually king And queen. At least that is the situation in my country, the Netherlands.
 
A king or Queen regnant are as equals. Their sex matters not in the slightest.

They are the sovereign Lord and Lady's of their respective Kingdoms.
 
Let's get back on topic...this thread is suddenly all over the place.

Any and all posts that have nothing do with Charles and Camilla's marriage from April 2005 on will be deleted without notice.
 
Back
Top Bottom