sirhon11234
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,453
- City
- New York
- Country
- United States
Poor Caroline of Brunswick didn't she die a couple of days after that.
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.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.
"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.
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.
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! That was very interesting reading and I learned alot.
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.
I don't know if this belongs or if it's allowed, remove if it's not. Do you guys think if there was no Diana in Charles life (Or for that matter, someone like her. I.e. pushed into his life), would he have married Camilla earlier?
And you are a reader of bad tabloid strories, i guess!Afterall, he is a Scorpio!!!
Prince Charles couldn't marry Camilla, because Camilla was sleeping around and was not a virgin. She lost her virginity at an early age.
Prince Charles couldn't marry Camilla, because Camilla was sleeping around and was not a virgin. She lost her virginity at an early age. If there was no Diana, there would have been someone else. He wasn't short of women falling at his feet, and him having his way with them. Afterall, he is a Scorpio!!!
Prince Charles couldn't marry Camilla, because Camilla was sleeping around and was not a virgin. She lost her virginity at an early age. If there was no Diana, there would have been someone else. He wasn't short of women falling at his feet, and him having his way with them. Afterall, he is a Scorpio!!!
Lucky old you...