The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 11-27-2005, 11:46 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
This discussion about Spanish titles should be continued in the Spanish Forums.

thanks,
Warren
__________________

  #362  
Old 12-07-2005, 01:26 AM
WillowDawn's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milton, United States
Posts: 7
Angry Question on Charles Succession

I have a question here. When Edward wanted to marry Wallace Simpson, he was told he could not succeed to the thrown being married to a divorcee'.
Camilla is divorced, as well, why on earth would the rule change with this?
What makes anyone think that Charles should take the thrown, when Edward had to give it up for Mrs. Simpson. I believe in order for the Royals to have any respect is to allow William to succeed instead of Charles. Why is this man allowed to have his Cake and eat it too? No, I'm NOT a fan of either Camilla nor Prince Charles as both of them continued on with adultery even after the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. They were the root of the marriage problems in the first place. This woman had NO respect for marriage, not even her own at the time. She doesn't deserve ANYTHING from anyone.
The Queen Mother even disliked her, and now she is wearing the Queen Mothers Ring?? Charles has "slapped her in the face, as well as the whole entire Country marrying this woman!"
__________________

  #363  
Old 12-07-2005, 01:38 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 780
hum maybe because society has evolved from the 1930s to now?
  #364  
Old 12-07-2005, 01:42 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
Well, Britain does not have a written Constitution so its major laws are not set in stone. Parliament can pass an Act that completely overrides everything if it wants to. The laws change with the times. I am not an expert so I cannot fully answer your question, but I think that in the case of Charles and Camilla, the "rules" (or, more accurately, the precedent) was adjusted to be compatible with the present situation. Charles and Camilla married by civil law and (anyone, please, correct me if I'm wrong) the Church of England "blessed" the civil law marriage. So even though the Church of England still recognizes the marriage of Charles and Diana (if that marriage had been annulled by the Anglican Church, William and Harry would be illegitimate and, thus, not eligible for the Throne) the Church really had no choice but to bless Charles' second marriage. He was a widower, in their eyes, and he was marrying a second time.. How could they not bless it? That's the way I see it. If I am wrong, please tell me.
  #365  
Old 12-07-2005, 01:46 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowDawn
I have a question here. When Edward wanted to marry Wallace Simpson, he was told he could not succeed to the thrown being married to a divorcee'.
Camilla is divorced, as well, why on earth would the rule change with this?
It isn't a rule. There was no law against Edward marrying Wallis Simpson.

Quote:
What makes anyone think that Charles should take the thrown, when Edward had to give it up for Mrs. Simpson.
Times change. Divorce was a major scandal in the 1930s. It's commonplace today.

Quote:
I believe in order for the Royals to have any respect is to allow William to succeed instead of Charles.
Might as well give up on the monarchy and just go with a republic if you're going to start cherry-picking among the royals for the most popular one of the moment.

Quote:
Why is this man allowed to have his Cake and eat it too? No, I'm NOT a fan of either Camilla nor Prince Charles as both of them continued on with adultery even after the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. They were the root of the marriage problems in the first place. This woman had NO respect for marriage, not even her own at the time. She doesn't deserve ANYTHING from anyone.
There were many problems with the marriage, as discussed on other threads. To blame Charles and Camilla's relationship is to be overly simplistic and unnecessarily biased.


Quote:
The Queen Mother even disliked her, and now she is wearing the Queen Mothers Ring?? Charles has "slapped her in the face, as well as the whole entire Country marrying this woman!"
Not only is she wearing the Queen Mother's ring, she's worn Queen Mary's Durbar tiara. That sends a message that she's been accepted by the Queen. If you read some of the threads here, you'll see several citizens of the "whole entire Country" being very supportive of her.

*******************

The above was a response as a member of the community here. The following is a comment as a moderator. We have a lot of problems with fights breaking out between Diana supporters and Charles-Camilla supporters. Confrontational and aggressive posting on this subject is likely to be edited or deleted by one of the moderators as being counterproductive. It isn't possible to have a mature conversation when people are shouting past each other. You'll find that calm and thoughtful posts will have a longer shelf life than rants and will result in far more pleasant conversations. With that said, welcome to the forum, and I hope this thread will continue in a positive vein.
  #366  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:02 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio
Well, Britain does not have a written Constitution so its major laws are not set in stone. Parliament can pass an Act that completely overrides everything if it wants to. The laws change with the times. I am not an expert so I cannot fully answer your question, but I think that in the case of Charles and Camilla, the "rules" (or, more accurately, the precedent) was adjusted to be compatible with the present situation. Charles and Camilla married by civil law and (anyone, please, correct me if I'm wrong) the Church of England "blessed" the civil law marriage. So even though the Church of England still recognizes the marriage of Charles and Diana (if that marriage had been annulled by the Anglican Church, William and Harry would be illegitimate and, thus, not eligible for the Throne) the Church really had no choice but to bless Charles' second marriage. He was a widower, in their eyes, and he was marrying a second time.. How could they not bless it? That's the way I see it. If I am wrong, please tell me.
Actually, I think the CofE will conduct services of prayer and dedication (in other words, the blessing you're referring to) even for two divorcees who are marrying. They just don't conduct weddings (or at least, they didn't - things are slightly less rigid now). It always struck me as weird that the church would conduct a service to recognise a marriage that it refused to conduct, but that's the way it's been for a long time.
  #367  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:19 AM
WillowDawn's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milton, United States
Posts: 7
I was not bashing any of the parties in the marriages, I am neither a supporter of Charles nor Diana, takes two to ruin a marriage or three in this case. Im also wondering why people don't remember that maybe had Charles remained faithful in his marriage, and Camilla was totally out of the picture, would the marriage have had a chance? I mean as long as Camilla stayed in the background, and bedded Charles, sure, there would be a problem with the wife, don't you think? I certainly would NOT have tolerated my husband cheating on me. Diana didn't start to cheat on Prince Charles till she finally knew what he was doing with Camilla. Which of course was not right either.

I understand times change, and what was not accepted in 1930 is probably accepted now. However, I believe that morals should not change as they have never changed in the eyes of God, that is if you believe in God, and the Royal family obviously does as the Queen is head of the Church.

I'm asking these questions now after watching the movie this past weekend about Charles and Camilla, and even then, Charles could not marry Camilla because she had a past. Why now is this changed? The woman still has a past and its even worse then when she first started the relationship with Charles, now all of a sudden is accepted, when she wasn't accepted then.
Had she and Charles been allowed to marry in the first place, this whole thing with Diana and soap opera would not have taken place. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me, and was very unfair to all the parties involved.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere that the the rules change to suit the Royal family in the times they need changing.
I do not wish to offend anyone, just curious as to why all of a sudden its ok and honky dory for Charles to do as he likes without any worry, and succeed to the thrown. I don't feel he is a good representative of the UK, or the Church as he has shown his blatant disregard for the sanctity of
his marriage to Diana. He doesn't seem to care what anyone else thinks, only what he wants and feels he should have.
Even the Queen warned both Charles and Diana that they could loose everything with a divorce, including Charles loosing his right to the thrown.
He was divorced before Diana died. So, that does not qualify him as a widow to me. How can anyone be considered a divorcee' and widower at the same time when he was not married to Diana when she died?
I still think William should be the one to succeed the thrown, NOT Charles.
I bet Edward is rolling in his grave along with Queen Victoria!
  #368  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:22 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Actually, I think the CofE will conduct services of prayer and dedication (in other words, the blessing you're referring to) even for two divorcees who are marrying. They just don't conduct weddings (or at least, they didn't - things are slightly less rigid now). It always struck me as weird that the church would conduct a service to recognise a marriage that it refused to conduct, but that's the way it's been for a long time.
Hmm.... Elspeth, was Camilla's marriage to APB a Catholic marriage, since APB is Catholic? If it was Catholic, then really the CoE's position would have been so much easier! For the CoE, Camilla wouldn't have been married, right?
Only Charles. And that was easily bypassed by having a civil marriage and Church blessing.
  #369  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:26 AM
WillowDawn's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milton, United States
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
Actually, I think the CofE will conduct services of prayer and dedication (in other words, the blessing you're referring to) even for two divorcees who are marrying. They just don't conduct weddings (or at least, they didn't - things are slightly less rigid now). It always struck me as weird that the church would conduct a service to recognise a marriage that it refused to conduct, but that's the way it's been for a long time.
It is very confusing to me as well.
  #370  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:36 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
I was not bashing any of the parties in the marriages, I am neither a supporter of Charles nor Diana, takes two to ruin a marriage or three in this case. Im also wondering why people don't remember that maybe had Charles remained faithful in his marriage, and Camilla was totally out of the picture, would the marriage have had a chance?
I think the majority opinion around here is that it wouldn't have. Charles and Diana were both too needy and self-centred to make things work out. Whether they'd have stayed together in a wrecked marriage if Charles hadn't had Camilla is another matter, but simply staying together with someone you despise isn't really an example of a genuine marriage.


Quote:
I'm asking these questions now after watching the movie this past weekend about Charles and Camilla, and even then, Charles could not marry Camilla because she had a past. Why now is this changed?
Because standards have changed. There was a time when the heir to the British throne had to marry a royal. There was a time when he had to marry a virgin. There was a time when he had to marry an aristocrat. Other crown princes have recently married women with previous relationships (including one previously married and one with an out-of-wedlock child); Charles's younger brothers have married women who had previous long-term relationships. Things have changed since the early 1070s.

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere that the the rules change to suit the Royal family in the times they need changing.
It depends what you mean by rules. There's no written set of rules; a lot of this is just standards and tradition, and these days standards are different from how they were. I think by now the royal family must realise that if you hold people up to unrealistic standards, you're going to have unfortunate results.

Quote:
I do not wish to offend anyone, just curious as to why all of a sudden its ok and honky dory for Charles to do as he likes without any worry, and succeed to the thrown. I don't feel he is a good representative of the UK, or the Church as he has shown his blatant disregard for the sanctity of
his marriage to Diana.
I think you'll find that more British people are concerned about the political rather than the religious aspect of the monarchy. Charles, with his experience, is likely to be a far more effective monarch that William will be for some time to come. Also, I don't think Charles would be keen to let William in for what Queen Elizabeth had to endure, which is to succeed to the throne too young to have had a life. His mother's heavy responsibilities while new to the job meant that Charles didn't have a particularly happy family life, and it seems that he blames many of his problems on that. I doubt he'd be falling over himself to wish the same problems on William and his family.


Quote:
He was divorced before Diana died. So, that does not qualify him as a widow to me. How can anyone be considered a divorcee' and widower at the same time when he was not married to Diana when she died?
I'm not certain about the legal issues, but once an ex-spouse is dead, a person can remarry in just the same way as a widower whose spouse died while they were married. The only restriction on the marriage of a divorced person is if there's an ex-spouse still living. Once the ex-spouse is dead, the divorced person is free to remarry.
  #371  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:39 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio
Hmm.... Elspeth, was Camilla's marriage to APB a Catholic marriage, since APB is Catholic? If it was Catholic, then really the CoE's position would have been so much easier! For the CoE, Camilla wouldn't have been married, right?
Only Charles. And that was easily bypassed by having a civil marriage and Church blessing.
I don't think that's the case, because the CofE is the established church, and so if a marriage is recognised legally in England, it's recognised by the CofE.

As far as I know, the Parker Bowles marriage took place according to the rites of the Roman Catholic church rather than the Anglican church, but it's still a legal marriage and would be considered as such by the CofE.

Chrissy57 is our local expert on matters to do with the church, though, so you might want to wait and see what she has to say about this.
  #372  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:47 AM
Margrethe II's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 917
Goodness... these kind of threads keep on popping up everywhere it would seem

"MII"
  #373  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:53 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
Yes Margareth they do even though they have been thouroughly dissected in many other threads.

To put it simple, soceity has evolved to a much nicer place. You dont need to be "pure" and "semi-holy" to be King or Queen anymore. That is why we have Letizia and Maxima and many other wonderfull royals with a "past" as future Queens. By law Charles will be King and he wants to be. He is trained for it and will be a wonderful King. It is not even sure if Edward wanted to be King. Many think Wallis Simpson was just an excuse to run away from his duties.
  #374  
Old 12-07-2005, 02:59 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25
Yes Margareth they do even though they have been thouroughly dissected in many other threads.

To put it simple, soceity has evolved to a much nicer place. You dont need to be "pure" and "semi-holy" to be King or Queen anymore. That is why we have Letizia and Maxima and many other wonderfull royals with a "past" as future Queens. By law Charles will be King and he wants to be. He is trained for it and will be a wonderful King. It is not even sure if Edward wanted to be King. Many think Wallis Simpson was just an excuse to run away from his duties.
Bah, "david" was trained to be King too. I don't know, maybe he just had a different personality from Charles. Charles aims to please. He wants to please his parents, his country, his sons, his wife. "David" was a bachelor who probably just wanted to please himself? Also, David resented his parents, so why would he want to please them? Maybe David acted to "stick it" to his mother. Who knows.
  #375  
Old 12-07-2005, 03:39 AM
WillowDawn's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milton, United States
Posts: 7
ok,so if Camilla is Queen Consort what is the differerence? Would it be that should Charles die when he is King, then William will be crowned King to reign, and Camilla would then be Queen Mother? Or would she reign as sole Queen and William have to waite till Camilla dies?
__________________
Sincerely,
Willow

www.heavenlybundlesnursery.com
  #376  
Old 12-07-2005, 03:46 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowDawn
ok,so if Camilla is Queen Consort what is the differerence? Would it be that should Charles die when he is King, then William will be crowned King to reign, and Camilla would then be Queen Mother? Or would she reign as sole Queen and William have to waite till Camilla dies?
Pretty straightforward. When Charles becomes King, Camilla becomes Queen. If King Charles predeceases Queen Camilla, she remains Queen Camilla and William ascends the throne. William will be King William, or "The King" and his wife will be Queen xxx, or "The Queen". Camilla will not be Queen Mother because she is not William's mother. Technically in this scenario Camilla would become "Dowager Queen" but that title is not used nowadays.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
  #377  
Old 12-07-2005, 03:47 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,894
She wouldn't be Queen Mother because she isn't the mother of the future king. She'd be Queen Dowager. No, she wouldn't reign in her own right; she isn't in the line of succession.
  #378  
Old 12-07-2005, 03:50 AM
WillowDawn's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Milton, United States
Posts: 7
I see and thank you for answering my question.
__________________
Sincerely,
Willow

www.heavenlybundlesnursery.com
  #379  
Old 12-07-2005, 07:19 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowDawn
.He was divorced before Diana died. So, that does not qualify him as a widow to me. How can anyone be considered a divorcee' and widower at the same time when he was not married to Diana when she died?
!
The high Anglican church does not accept divorce as such. If someone were to marry 50 times and be widowed 49, if the 1st partner is still alive, in the eye's of some in the church, they are still married.
It is only when the first and original spouse dies, that you become a widow or widower in their eyes. As soon as the first spouse dies, you are mr/mrs wonderful again!
So if you have the misfortune to have been married to a wife/husband beater, as far as the church is concerned, you are still husband and wife! (I don't speak from personal experience, I hasten to add):)
  #380  
Old 12-07-2005, 07:40 AM
auntie's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Middlesex, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,506
I read in the past, in a forum about King Edward VIII that the main reason the parliament made him abdicate was because he was unfit to be King, and they used the Simpson affair as an excuse. Apparently, it was before WWII and top secret documents were being read by Wallis, it was discovered by a minister, who spoke to wallis at a dinner and he understood it from her conversation. I also think that it was due to the fact that he was pro German!
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
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
Who Will Reign First / Next mktv2000 Royal Chit Chat 150 10-01-2013 02:28 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 5 Avalon The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 106 06-17-2009 09:02 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 4 Elspeth The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 286 02-07-2008 07:58 AM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 3 ysbel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 406 08-16-2007 08:53 PM
Will Charles Ever Reign? Part 1 grecka The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 641 11-07-2005 08:22 AM




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 haakon kate middleton king abdullah ii king abdullah in australia king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander madeleine member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen elizabeth ii 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 royal fashion september 2016 sheikh hamdan bin mohammed 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 09:46 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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