The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 02-14-2005, 04:59 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian
I just heard on TV that Charles and Camilla's marriage could be illegal because if they are having a civil marriage then it cannot be recognized
this is on the bbc website an excerpt from what was on tv yesterday:




Panorama: Lawful impediment?





The Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles



Two years ago Panorama outlined the difficulties Prince Charles would face if he tried to marry Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles. Last week Clarence House announced the marriage would go ahead and insists everything is now in order.

Serious obstacles in the way of marriage have been overcome but Panorama reveals that they may have been replaced by a new one, with some legal experts now questioning how a civil marriage in England can be within the laws that govern the royal family.

According to one opinion, voiced by Stephen Cretney QC, Emeritus Fellow in Legal History at Oxford University, the situation may be

"... that although there has been a ceremony and that has led to public rejoicing the Prince of Wales is not married and the... Mrs Parker Bowles is not his wife. And that would be a very, very serious matter."

One Act in particular, in the view of lawyers Panorama spoke to, may pose serious legal problems for the civil marriage planned for Charles and Camilla. In 1836 Parliament passed the Marriage Act which allowed people, for the first time, to have civil rather than church marriages. However, the Royal family was specifically exempted from the law and apparently barred from civil marriages.

Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal family


The Marriage Act, 1949

In 1949 that Act was updated by a new Marriage Act. This is still the main Act regulating marriage in this country. It retained many features of the 1836 Act - including the Royal exemption. It states that

"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal family."

Prince Charles' spokesman at Clarence House told Panorama that the Prince had taken advice from four legal experts. Their judgement was that the 1949 Act is not a continuation of the old legislation. It's a completely new act, and therefore does not carry over the bar on royals having civil marriages. But according to Stephen Cretney QC

"The 1949 Act is a consolidation Act. A consolidation Act does not change the law except in the most minor ways and all it does is to bring together the visions previously scattered amongst the large number of other acts."

... it is not open to the two of them to follow the normal procedures of a registry marriage.


Valentine Le Grice QC

This is supported by Valentine Le Grice QC, a specialist in family law, who says

"It would not be possible for them to get married. By the way in which most people would understand a registry marriage ... it is not open to the two of them to follow the normal procedures of a registry marriage."

If the 1949 Marriage Act does indeed pose a problem and would prevent a civil wedding at Windsor, then there are a number of solutions:
  • Prince Charles could use the Human Rights Act to challenge the 1949 Act. But that would involve court cases and a change in the law.
  • The couple could get married in Scotland, where the law is different.
  • The couple could opt for a common law marriage something which the 18th century Clandestine Marriages Act, abolished for everyone except royals.
  • Or, perhaps the most straightforward solution, Parliament could act swiftly to pass legislation to correct the situation.
__________________

  #362  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:00 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Sara, if Diana were here, she'd be perfectly happy for Charles to marry Camilla, as long as he took himself off to Italy or something and left her in charge of preparing William for the throne in a way that suited her and allowed her to be in the position of being the power behind the heir and eventually behind the throne.

Do you honestly think the Queen would have stood for that?
__________________

  #363  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:08 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
It will be hard enough for William's future wife to live in the shadow of the dead Diana; imagine her position if Diana was still alive.
  #364  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:12 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexandria

By all accounts, even by Diana's own account, Charles has always been a good father to his sons. He may not have been a very good husband, and not necessarily a good son or brother, but he's always been a good father whatever his other shortcomings are or may be.
alexandria,

what are you referring to?
I have never been aware of more faults.
  #365  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:18 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
I am sure that the Queen has sought legal opinions independant of those Charles obtained to ensure that everything remains legal and above board. She is not a woman to take risks or rely on one source of advice.
I also wonder about the difference, if any, between a civil ceremony and a Registry marriage? I would assume that a celebrant would perform the civil ceremony as opposed to a judge, magistrate or whomever performs the registry service. Perhaps that is the difference? :|
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #366  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:35 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Discussions were held between Buckingham Palance, Clarence House, the Prime Minister, and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I think we can be pretty confident that all is above board!
  #367  
Old 02-14-2005, 06:24 AM
Splodger's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 154
Church of England Implications:

I am always a little surprised over the issue of divorce and re-marriage within the Church of England.

I am bemused why people feel that Charles should not marry Camilla beacuse he is the future Head of the Church of England and that divorce is wrong. The Church of England owes its entire existance to a chubby, bearded gentleman of the 16th centuary who wanted a divorce.

Henry VIII, one of histories most famous adulterers, broke with the Roman Catholic Church when the Pope refused to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry his pregnant mistress Anne Bolyn. Therefore, Henry established his own church based on protistant principles - The Church of England - and made himself the supream head of the institution so he could do exactly what he wanted and get a divorce... two of them in fact (catherine of aragon & anne of cleves).

I cant help but find it surprising that people wish to condem Charles' wedding to Camilla based on religious values beacuse he will one day be head of the Church of England, when the Church's first leader established it so he could get divorced and marry his mistress.
  #368  
Old 02-14-2005, 06:25 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,529
As I understand it the PM has perhaps the most important role and the final say in the matter,

the queen made her decision after talking with blair.

PM Bladwin did not allow edward to marry mrs simpson

PM eden decided that margaret would not receive an income if she married townsend (margaret said that the teachings of the curch of england were her reasons but I read somewhere that she would have found it very difficult to leave her royal lifestyle)
  #369  
Old 02-14-2005, 06:29 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by aninhas
ACC, he made Diana's life miserable... and Camilla helped him a lot... Yeah, they can marry but he NEVER will be King, neeeeever!
Diana made her own life miserable. She brought all her unhappiness on herself.
  #370  
Old 02-14-2005, 06:33 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
tiaraprin,
there is a verse in the bible that says "Let he who is without sin caste the first stone"
I dont think that any of us are perfect or candidates for sainthood so how about we lay off the name calling. I don't notice anyone calling Diana an adulteress and yet she did her share of enticing and sleeping with other womens husbands.
Very well said! Unfortunately the "Di-maniacs" can't see her very many faults.
  #371  
Old 02-14-2005, 07:59 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
I am sure that the Queen has sought legal opinions independant of those Charles obtained to ensure that everything remains legal and above board. She is not a woman to take risks or rely on one source of advice.
I also wonder about the difference, if any, between a civil ceremony and a Registry marriage? I would assume that a celebrant would perform the civil ceremony as opposed to a judge, magistrate or whomever performs the registry service. Perhaps that is the difference? :|
I think the difference is the location. Usually these marriages take place in the Registrar's office; in this case the Registrar of marriages will be going to Windsor Castle to preside over the marriage there. I know they've done quite a lot of changes to civil marriages since I moved away from the UK; nowadays they can be celebrated in many places, not just Registrars' offices. Maybe someone who still lives in the UK can give us some information.
  #372  
Old 02-14-2005, 08:04 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Before the partisans on either side get into another fight, please be considerate of other people when you post. We've been having to delete posts and deal with upset members constantly for the last couple of days, and it really shouldn't be necessary. This is a topic that's touching people's emotions on both sides, and everybody should be bearing in mind that the people on the other side of the argument are just as capable of getting their feelings hurt.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
  #373  
Old 02-14-2005, 08:07 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Diana made her own life miserable. She brought all her unhappiness on herself.
Iain,
Whilst I ceased to be a fan of Diana some time ago I must, in part, disagree with you. It takes two to tango and Diana & Charles made each other unhappy. Thankfully they had the courage to separate and not do something stupid like remaining together "for the children" or, in their case "for the monarchy". Even had Diana lived they were both entitled to make new lives for themselves and attempt to find some happiness.

I am becoming very angry with those who say "Charles has no right to happiness" etc, etc, etc. Every human being has that right.

I am sure that Diana would have found another companion whether it was Dodi or someone else.

I think we should all give Charles a break and join together in wishing him and Camilla happiness. Diana is dead and all our vitriole against Camilla isn't going to bring her back.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
  #374  
Old 02-14-2005, 08:56 AM
tiff_tiff_tiff2000's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 175
Although I am not a big fan of Camilla, I am very happy for the two of them. We will never know the true story of Charles and Diana, no matter how many gossip magazines we buy or how many books on the story we read. The whole truth lies in the memories of Charles, Camilla. Diana and the royal family. Charles and Camilla have been through many many years together and obviously has a very deep friendship, if not love. I am very happy that they are finally able to get married to each other. I wish them the very best and all the happiness in the world.
  #375  
Old 02-14-2005, 08:57 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Before the partisans on either side get into another fight, please be considerate of other people when you post. We've been having to delete posts and deal with upset members constantly for the last couple of days, and it really shouldn't be necessary. This is a topic that's touching people's emotions on both sides, and everybody should be bearing in mind that the people on the other side of the argument are just as capable of getting their feelings hurt.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Elspeth

British Royals moderator
And to think that some people claim the British Monarchy is either irrelevent or will fade away because of indifference!

The emotions this has stirred up is something to behold.
  #376  
Old 02-14-2005, 09:28 AM
Splodger's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
QUOTE I think we should all give Charles a break and join together in wishing him and Camilla happiness. Diana is dead and all our vitriole against Camilla isn't going to bring her back.
..............................
Well said Wymanda, but I don't think appeals to rationality, logic or simple good-naturedness will make any difference. Just watch the response to your post!
I seccond that motion!
  #377  
Old 02-14-2005, 11:29 AM
cute_girl's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 993
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
I am becoming very angry with those who say "Charles has no right to happiness" etc, etc, etc. Every human being has that right.
I never said he doesnt have the right to be happy,thats everyone's right,te matter was if he deserves happinness,after all the pain he cuased to his wife and children.if he still loved Camilla he didnt have the right to marry someone else
  #378  
Old 02-14-2005, 11:54 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Sara, if Diana were here, she'd be perfectly happy for Charles to marry Camilla, as long as he took himself off to Italy or something and left her in charge of preparing William for the throne in a way that suited her and allowed her to be in the position of being the power behind the heir and eventually behind the throne.

Do you honestly think the Queen would have stood for that?
Do you have any articles that would suggest that Diana would want Charles to go to Italy so that she could prepare William for the throne in her own way?

Anyway...give me a break. SOunds like some ppl are as hostile to Diana as others are hostile to Camilla. You and others are just as ignorant as you claim others who are against Camilla to be. Do you honestly think that Diana would try to influence William in a manipulative way. SHe was grwoing up her last few years, but I guess you just can't see that. I think that you and other ppl who blast Diana and seem to forget that it does take two to tango-not three! Hello Camilla was totally involved in Diana's and Charles' marriage. And although some say that Diana was the 1st one to have an affair, Charles' attention was with Camilla. Camilla did everything to intimidate and make Diana more insecure. SHe also knew that Charles could not take a young, needy lady like Diana. AN dso she waits patiently and now this mess. This is a repeat of history I guess. You guys who lambast Diana and totally don't see Camilla for who she is (or was) are weird.

Wait flashbulb. Din't Diana ask Camilla to stay out of the marriage? Does not the Bible say that if you have fault with your brother go to him. Well did not Diana do that? And what did Camilla do...

But I guess the ends justify the means.
__________________
*Under Construction*
  #379  
Old 02-14-2005, 12:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,487
ANd ppl do deserve to be happy, but they should also be dutiful. I am glad that Charles and Camilla are getting married cuz the alternative was not good at all. However I am against that she gets the HRH status and even a title. They could have had a ceremnoy where she did not get a title. That would have been more suitable. But I think that it is more suitable that Charles not accede to the throne. So many things have been compromised cuz of this. The British monarchy and institution has been assaulted. This is a very dark period for the British monarchy and I pray that William and his heirs will help to set things right. WHo would have known years ago that this mess would happen. This is what happens when one has a spoiled son like Charles.
__________________
*Under Construction*
  #380  
Old 02-14-2005, 12:14 PM
Splodger's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , United Kingdom
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute_girl
I never said he doesnt have the right to be happy,thats everyone's right,te matter was if he deserves happinness,after all the pain he cuased to his wife and children.if he still loved Camilla he didnt have the right to marry someone else
We can not view Royal marriages in the same way we would view our own. I can not condone adultary, however royal marriages do not work like normal peoples marriages.

Until very recently, members of Royal Families HAD to marry other Prince and Princesses and would lose their status if they married 'beneath' them. This was to preserve the blood line which was important in the days when they beleived in divine right, and also to form political alliences... they did not always marry for love!

When Carles married Diana, the situation was not that much different. How can we beleive he really wanted to marry her when she was selected as having met the criteria for a pure, inocent, virgin girl with no skeletons to come out of the closet and harm the monarchy in scandle. I forget her name but one of Charle's other girlfriends in the 70s was promptley ditched when scandle tarnished her name.

Charles married Diana because short of being royal her self, she was the ideal bride for the future King of the United Kingdom - but not neccesserily the ideal bride for Charles Windsor who happend to be the future King. Diana was neive as she was inocent. I admit it was unfair for a 19 year old girl, socialy alkwerd, the forgotten daughter of a broken home herself, to be plunged into the "institution" of the British Royal Family. However the blame rests on her own parents as much as Charles. I fail to beleive that no one in the Spencer family knew about Charles and Camilla. Charles had dated, if not at the very least been good friends with one of Diana's elder sisters (I forget if it was Jane or Sarah) in the mid 1970s, and later Jane's future husband was a member of the Queen's senior staff. They must have known, but they obviously didnt let that stop them marrying Diana off to bring the Spencer family into the heart of the Royal Court and Royal Favour.

Had the Prince of Wales just been Mr. Charles Windsor his choice to marry Diana would be wrong, however we the people wanted him to marry Diana, we wanted the fairy tale princess, we to a certain extent ensured he had to marry an inocent girl like Diana beacuse we the people are the first to condem anyone when their skeletons are dragged from the closet. By popular demand and traditional value we created a situation whereby the future King had to be married to the most prettiest woman, who looked great, and didn't say much to embaress anyone or have any bright idea's of changing the institution... but she did... she turned out to be too sucessfull and too powerfull - she back fired on the Court and caused more damage to the Royal Family than any Republican could given the chance. She told the world what we should never have known and she destroyed the fairy tale . Our fairy tale gone we then turned our own anger on Charles and Camilla for depriving us of the fairy tale princess we wanted.

Diana was too neive. She beleived in the Fairy Tale that the Windsors, the Spencors and ALL the public created for her. She beleived she was marrying a perfect man who was the perfect Prince Charming. She was too young and to inexperienced to know that real life in any marriage was not a fairy tale, least of all a Royal marriage. I feel for Diana, she was a remarkable woman, and did a great deal of good for the people. I can not imagine how she felt when she knew her husband and gone to see Camilla on their wedding night. However Princesses do not blab to the press. Princesses except that they have duties to the institution and the state and their first love should be their people. Unlike the rest of us, they must love, honour and obay the people, not just each other. Diana was not prepaired for what awaited her and so the hurt she felt must have been bad as it was probably the biggest lie anyone could have told. But Charles alone didn't do it, we all did it.

This disastor was also our fault. Until we can stop our selves criticising people and condeming them for their mistakes. Until we stop buying news papers who are printed not to tell news but to make money, we are all guilty for buying into the fairy tale that destroyed diana. Prince Haakon of Norway made one massive bold step in marrying a single mother. I can't even begine to think what would happen if Prince William was to do the same in the UK - it would never be alowed - the poor girl would be stripped off all dignity by the cheap tabloids people take as truth. This was the fear the Palace had when Charles needed a bride and that is why Diana was chosen. Although Charles could have said no - would we have let him?
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
camilla, camilla parker bowles, duchess of cornwall, engagement, 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) VuMom The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1583 04-09-2015 11:10 PM
Charles and Camilla: Visit to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE - February 2007 hornsen Royal and Ruling Families of the Gulf States 183 03-02-2007 06:49 PM




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 e-mail fashion poll germany grand duke jean greece 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 poland state visit to norway prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mary style queen juliana queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde 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 in oslo royal fashion september 2016 spencers 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 01:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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