Will Charles Ever Reign? part 2 - Page 3

Elspeth · #41 11-08-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layla1971

It doesn't have to be that way, If a country didn't want a Crown Prince's wife to be their Queen, she could simply be his consort (same thing really, except for official things), and not have the title of queen.

British law doesn't recognise morganatic marriage; that was made clear during the whole Edward VIII mess. Charles and Camilla are legally married, and when he becomes King, she becomes Queen automatically. She can call herself whatever she likes, of course, but she'll still be Queen, just as she's Princess of Wales now.

BeatrixFan · #42 11-08-2005, 03:38 PM

You believe in God, I believe in God, Charles and Camilla believe in God. But God aint gonna introduce legislation to stop Camilla being Queen in the House of Commons and the Government has power over the Church. What they say goes and if they say she can be Queen, she will be. They haven't said she can't be and so she will be.

Elspeth · #43 11-08-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corazon

yeah, is true but the church' head is the king like the pope is catolic's church head.
I am not in agreement with much with the Pope says (I prefer a little modernity, more open head) but I believe in God.

The head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, if we're talking about the equivalent of the Pope. The monarch is the Supreme Governor as long as the Church of England is the established church in England. If the church is disestablished, the Archbishop remains the head of the church but the monarch wouldn't be Supreme Governor. Goodness knows what'd happen as far as a coronation was concerned, but that's another matter.

corazon · #44 11-08-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

You mean, apart from George IV, who had two wives at the same time? And Henry VIII, who had wives killed so he could marry again within the letter of church law?

YEs, you right, george IV and henry VIII.
Henry was desperate of son, his 5 children with catrherine of aragón died when they were young and only MARY (to later MARY I) was adult., George IV was very inlove with to actress but not heve children legitimate (have 10 children with the actress)
(it did not hope to be king, tapeworm 2 brothers older than they died without children) but that he marriege but his 2 daughters die for that victoria I was queen.

corazon · #45 11-08-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, if we're talking about the equivalent of the Pope. The monarch is the Supreme Governor as long as the Church of England is the established church in England. If the church is disestablished, the Archbishop remains the head of the church but the monarch wouldn't be Supreme Governor. Goodness knows what'd happen as far as a coronation was concerned, but that's another matter.

yeah, you rihgt.

Elspeth · #46 11-08-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corazon

YEs, you right, george IV and henry VIII.
Henry was desperate of son, his 5 children with catrherine of aragón died when they were young and only MARY (to later MARY I) was adult., George IV was very inlove with to actress but not heve children legitimate (have 10 children with the actress)
(it did not hope to be king, tapeworm 2 brothers older than they died without children) but that he marriege but his 2 daughters die.

You're thinking about William IV, not George IV. George married a Catholic in a secret ceremony, and then he went through his marriage with Princess Caroline while still married to Maria Fitzherbert.

corazon · #47 11-08-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

You're thinking about William IV, not George IV. George married a Catholic in a secret ceremony, and then he went through his marriage with Princess Caroline while still married to Maria Fitzherbert.

ohh yes yes, william IV was george IV's brother. yes, yes.
The divorce not was legal for the catholics so he marriage the princess caroline (protestant0's wedding) without are divorce, yes. He no have children with her, I think.

corazon · #48 11-08-2005, 03:51 PM

at that time they were neat weddings and only they married according to having to have heirs.
the catholics not was accepted in the throne's line.

corazon · #49 11-08-2005, 04:02 PM

I have a question that nobody could answer to me, as would be the official position of charles if he abdicates to the throne and william is king? THIS IS HYPOTHESIS will continue being prince of wales? , because the king's eldest son is prince of wales for tath the william's son must be prince of wales. Somebody know?
Charles will be prince of the united kingdow? or he will be like EDWARD VIII?

BeatrixFan · #50 11-08-2005, 04:04 PM

Well, if he abdicated he would still have been King for however brief a time, so he would lose the Prince of Wales title. It would be up to William to give his father and his step-mother a title.

corazon · #51 11-08-2005, 04:11 PM

ok, he lost the title and will be william's decision another title.
...interesting and complicated situation
...

Princejohnny25 · #52 11-08-2005, 04:11 PM

The whole point and survival of the monarchy is hereditary right and successive tradition. Charles and Camilla will be come King and Queen Consort when the present Queen passes. Changing the rules for one person will weaken the monarchy substansiably. It is well known that Camilla will be Queen. But, Clarence house has said that it is "intended" that she be known as HRH The Princess Consort. That inteded means that if the people are still hostile, which most people arent anymore, than she will be PC.

corazon · #53 11-08-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

The whole point and survival of the monarchy is hereditary right and successive tradition.

THANKS GOD FOR THAT

BeatrixFan · #54 11-08-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

But, Clarence house has said that it is "intended" that she be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

I for one don't believe thats ever been the intention - I believe it was said to appease the public who were against the idea at the time. As far as I can see it, the UK and the US have accepted her. That was a hurdle they needed to get over and they have done so brilliantly. Europe won't be a problem at all and so it rests with the British People. And there's no problem there either. We're used to her already and she's part of the furniture. And thats within a few months. They've got a fair few years to make sure the transitions secure and I'm sure it will be. She'll be Queen - I've got no doubts about that. Charles won't let her be anything else. He compromised on the Princess of Wales thing but he wants her as his Queen. And so do I.

Princejohnny25 · #55 11-08-2005, 04:23 PM

I dont think Charles has long before he is King. If you havent noticed, they are speeding up Camillas transition. The Queen is personally trying to make her accepted into the family. They have taken a high profile trip for their first trip. Maybe the queen is sick or weakening and they are worrying about the future. Not to sound morbid or depressing but it is a thought.

BeatrixFan · #56 11-08-2005, 04:24 PM

Camilla is non-negotiable. Always has been and always will be. And thank God for it.

Skydragon · #57 11-08-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corazon

look, is very simple look back in the history. the monarchy have 1203 years old from EGBERT, from him there was no king without being married according to church. I do not say this, is in history.

If you look up Egbert, you will find that he was preceded by other Princes and Kings, he was descended from King Cynowulf of Wessex.
He was far from being the first King.:)

corazon · #58 11-08-2005, 05:23 PM

he was the first king recognized like sovereign of all England. Look in the web page of the monarchy, the first king Anglo-Saxon was him.

http://www.britannia.com/history/h6f.html
here are the completa list but the sure is in the web pago official.