The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:32 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Who can stop Charles from reigning? Getting down to the legalities involved here? It is my understanding that he has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to take the throne? Have I misunderstood something here? This is still a Monarchy, correct, not a democracy?

What options do the British public have and their elected representatives, short of abolishing the Monarchy? Does anyone seriously think that is going to happen in the foreseeable future?

If Charles wished and really didn't care about his place in history, what would be to stop him from simply chucking all but the VERY FEW required duties he has and those are precious few, sitting around being waited on hand and foot and spending a ton of money for the rest of his life? Who would there be to stop him from doing that, both as the Prince of Wales and the King?

I know it may make people feel "empowered" to talk otherwise, but there really is no real choices here, is there?

What did Diana say "I want to be the Queen of People's hearts" YES, but then again she was just about to be divorced and sat right outside the Constitutional Monarchy, wasn't she? She didn't have any choice in the matter, including her HRH as I recall?

The FIRM is well established, very powerful, very wealthy and like it or not, the British public ARE AND CONTINUE TO BE VERY DEFERENTIAL.
__________________

__________________
  #242  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:45 PM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I think the love story or Camilla and Charles is the greatest love story of the previous century. I think we should each WISH that someone would PERMANENTLY love us in that way, no matter what.
Exactly, it's a fairytale of the grown up, even Cinderella kind. It is for that reason that those who loved Diana wish to punish the Prince of Wales for ruining their dreams.

Charles will reign if he lives long enough. Otherwise, what would be the point of the monarchy?
__________________

__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
  #243  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:17 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Who can stop Charles from reigning? Getting down to the legalities involved here? It is my understanding that he has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to take the throne? Have I misunderstood something here? This is still a Monarchy, correct, not a democracy?
He can be stopped by Act of Parliament (Parliament is the one with the absolute right to choose a monarch), but that's not going to happen. He doesn't have an absolute right, but only the right granted to him by the law.

Not to stray too much, but democracy can take many forms.
__________________
  #244  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
He can be stopped by Act of Parliament (Parliament is the one with the absolute right to choose a monarch), but that's not going to happen. He doesn't have an absolute right, but only the right granted to him by the law.

Not to stray too much, but democracy can take many forms.
Which would entail abolishing the monarchy, no? Are you suggesting that Parliament can say skip him and give the throne directly to Prince William? If so, please CITE THE LAW that you are basing your opinion on.
__________________
  #245  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:51 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Which would entail abolishing the monarchy, no? Are you suggesting that Parliament can say skip him and give the throne directly to Prince William? If so, please CITE THE LAW that you are basing your opinion on.
Would it abolish the monarchy? No. "Monarchy" isn't even incumbent on being hereditary. The pope is a monarch, as were the elected Kings of Poland.

The current succession is based on Acts of Parliament, and they can be changed, so yes, Parliament can do whatever they want with the succession. They've done it before and they can do it again. See the Act of Settlement 1701 for a reference. Parliament overruled the succession rights of the descendants of James II and gave them to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

They removed Edward VIII from office (on his request, but they still did it), which was the only way he could be removed. See His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 for a reference here.

The British Parliament is completely supreme. Any Act of it is the supreme law and cannot be invalidated by any authority (well, now the EU is involved some, but that's by Act of Parliament as well). If all three parts of Parliament (2 houses and the Queen) pass a law invalidating Charles' succession rights, he will not be the monarch upon the Queen's death. That's probably not going to happen, though.
__________________
  #246  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:59 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Would it abolish the monarchy? No. "Monarchy" isn't even incumbent on being hereditary. The pope is a monarch, as were the elected Kings of Poland.

The current succession is based on Acts of Parliament, and they can be changed, so yes, Parliament can do whatever they want with the succession. They've done it before and they can do it again. See the Act of Settlement 1701 for a reference. Parliament overruled the succession rights of the descendants of James II and gave them to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

They removed Edward VIII from office (on his request, but they still did it), which was the only way he could be removed. See His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 for a reference here.

The British Parliament is completely supreme. Any Act of it is the supreme law and cannot be invalidated by any authority (well, now the EU is involved some, but that's by Act of Parliament as well). If all three parts of Parliament (2 houses and the Queen) pass a law invalidating Charles' succession rights, he will not be the monarch upon the Queen's death. That's probably not going to happen, though.
I have just reviewed the Act of Settlement 1701, in fact BEFORE seeing this post, nowhere within it does it state that Parliament can jump around within a Royal family and pick and choose? It clearly definies a line that is to be followed.

Yes, King Edward VIII did sign a ABDICATION, if he would have refused to do so and married Wallis anyway, his "government" ministers would have resigned? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Once again, Parliament could CHOOSE to abolish the Monarchy, but really nothing else would have been available.

Here is my bottom line point in all of this, YES, the British people through their elected government can throw the Monarchy out on it's ears, that goes without saying. It also goes without saying that is NOT going to happen, the British public are way too enamored with both the pomp and ceremony and as a whole that they too may someday, somewhere in their lineage be aristocratic and somebodies and we both know that.
__________________
  #247  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:13 PM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 506
What purpose would it serve if Charles were to be skipped in the line of succession?
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
  #248  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:49 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I have just reviewed the Act of Settlement 1701, in fact BEFORE seeing this post, nowhere within it does it state that Parliament can jump around within a Royal family and pick and choose? It clearly definies a line that is to be followed.
And as it is an Act of Parliament, it can be amended, as no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament from changing the law. I was using it as an example of Parliament changing its mind about succession, anyways. If Parliament wanted, it could amend the Act of Settlement with a new Act removing Charles from succession. That won't happen, however.

Parliament doesn't need a legal authorization to pass an Act. It's authorization is its complete and total supremacy over the law.

My point is that "can," "will," and "should" are all different things. Can Parliament remove Charles? Yes. Will they? Most likely not. Should they? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Yes, King Edward VIII did sign a ABDICATION, if he would have refused to do so and married Wallis anyway, his "government" ministers would have resigned? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Once again, Parliament could CHOOSE to abolish the Monarchy, but really nothing else would have been available.
Edward VIII didn't have the power to stop being the monarch. Only Parliament had that power. Parliament could have said no had they been in a cruel mood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Here is my bottom line point in all of this, YES, the British people through their elected government can throw the Monarchy out on it's ears, that goes without saying. It also goes without saying that is NOT going to happen, the British public are way too enamored with both the pomp and ceremony and as a whole that they too may someday, somewhere in their lineage be aristocratic and somebodies and we both know that.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
What purpose would it serve if Charles were to be skipped in the line of succession?
It wouldn't serve a purpose.
__________________
  #249  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:06 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,648
Dear wbenson,
You have put valid arguments in defending your point of view. I have learnt the things about the succession rules I have never expected to exist. If the parties concerned do not approve Prince Charles due to some valid reason, who will be considered as the next in line (i.e., Prince William or Prince Andrew)?

Although highly unlikely
, hard core traditional monarchists, if such people exist, may play the morganatic marriage card.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things" Amanda, "Point of No Return"
  #250  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:31 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Dear wbenson,
You have put valid arguments in defending your point of view. I have learnt the things about the succession rules I have never expected to exist. If the parties concerned do not approve Prince Charles due to some valid reason, who will be considered as the next in line (i.e., Prince William or Prince Andrew)?

Although highly unlikely
, hard core traditional monarchists, if such people exist, may play the morganatic marriage card.
If they did such a thing and merely invalidated Charles, it would go to William. I'd imagine that if they were ever so petty, they may just pretend Charles never existed and strike all of his heirs, too, but they don't have to.

I'd like to see them try to play a Morganatic Marriage card, considering there's no such thing in UK law. It would be fun to disprove them!
__________________
  #251  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:51 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,648
Thanks for explaining about the morgnatic marriage situation in the United Kingdom. Well ... Now I understand why Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Charles exert every effort to appease the society at large and, thus, gain a wide acceptance of people. This slightly resembles presidential campaigns.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things" Amanda, "Point of No Return"
  #252  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
And as it is an Act of Parliament, it can be amended, as no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament from changing the law. I was using it as an example of Parliament changing its mind about succession, anyways. If Parliament wanted, it could amend the Act of Settlement with a new Act removing Charles from succession. That won't happen, however.

Parliament doesn't need a legal authorization to pass an Act. It's authorization is its complete and total supremacy over the law.

My point is that "can," "will," and "should" are all different things. Can Parliament remove Charles? Yes. Will they? Most likely not. Should they? No.



Edward VIII didn't have the power to stop being the monarch. Only Parliament had that power. Parliament could have said no had they been in a cruel mood.



I agree.



It wouldn't serve a purpose.
Well, when I look at the course of recent British history, I see the Prince of Wales BEING DIVORCED, I see the Prince of Wales and his long term companion LIVING TOGETHER and finally I see the Prince of Wales MARRYING his long term lover companion and she receiving a Title and place in the Royal Family, even though she had previously been married and of course was not a virgin.

I still see HRH Prince Charles ascending to the throne and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall being his Queen Consort.
__________________
  #253  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:07 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I still see HRH Prince Charles ascending to the throne and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall being his Queen Consort.
As do I. I hope they drop that silly "Princess Consort" thing, too. (I think the very beginning of his reign would be the easiest time, because who would dare criticise a grieving monarch?)
__________________
  #254  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:22 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,682
I think the "Princess Consort" stuff is non-sense. If the whole situation had gone the other way round, Charles divorcing Camilla and marrying Diana (boy, that sounds weird lol) and if the people's love for her had been the same, there wouldn't have been such a question. So I do hope Camilla gets that "Queen Consort" title.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #255  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:50 PM
LOSSEAN's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NASINU, Fiji
Posts: 260
The Gods will decide. But we can say all we want.

Thank you to all those who have explained the law. It has been a revelation.
__________________
  #256  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
I totally agree that Camilla should be Queen Consort, of course, she is married to the future King.

I am going to STRETCH the reach of this thread to include a brief discussion of Prince Philip, his role as father to Prince Charles and will justify it on the basis of the whole question of whether or not Charles could, would, should ascend the throne is predicated on his marriage to Camilla and Prince Philip certainly had a major impact on both of Prince Charles's marriages.

If that gentleman would have allowed his son to make his own decisions, regarding whom he was going to love, would have ever shown him any fatherly concern other than for public consumption, things might have been entirely different. The only time Prince Philip had a problem with the disaster known as the Waleses marriage was when he perceived it was having a negative effect on the Monarchy. I don't think he has ever cared about what was best for his son.

I will go a bit further and say I really don't accept and give a great deal of credence to a person who preaches family values, while himself married and openly cheating with a relatives wife and that is certainly documented about Prince Philip, I believe?

The truth is British Monarchs have been having sexual liasons outside the confines of their marriage vows for centuries.
__________________
  #257  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:04 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I will go a bit further and say I really don't accept and give a great deal of credence to a person who preaches family values, while himself married and openly cheating with a relatives wife and that is certainly documented about Prince Philip, I believe?
I don't think it was ever documented.
__________________
  #258  
Old 12-30-2007, 08:32 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I don't think it was ever documented.
I have three separate published sources in my possession that says that it is. I am basing my opinion on this.
__________________
  #259  
Old 12-30-2007, 10:38 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I have three separate published sources in my possession that says that it is. I am basing my opinion on this.
I think it's one of those things like the thread about "who is Prince Harry's father?" We're just never going to know because the people involved have no desire to tell us.
__________________
  #260  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
because who would dare criticise a grieving monarch?
You would probably be surprised. A grieving son, but a constitutional monarch nonetheless. And such delicate matters shall invariably arise, and with swift fortitude at that.

Unfortunately the matter can make them look rather stupid if nothing is decided upon sooner rather than later. To remain steadfast with such a suggestion all the way to the throne, only to drop it at the last minute...such indecisiveness has the capability to create some rather unwelcome backlash.

Whatever her title, I think Camilla shall fulfill a wonderful supporting role with much conviction and though I haven't met the woman, I'm inclined to think of her as a perfectly warm and kind hearted indavidual who it would seem has a splenid sense of humour.
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
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
Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding? ysbel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1212 06-09-2011 06:37 AM
Charles and Camilla current events 14: September - November 2006 Avalon Current Events Archive 199 11-10-2006 03:46 PM
Charles and Camilla current events 13: July-September 2006 Warren Current Events Archive 201 09-11-2006 12:00 PM
Charles & Camilla Current Events 3: 4-16 October 2005 Warren Current Events Archive 185 10-15-2005 08:11 PM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 2: Sept - Oct 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 199 10-04-2005 04:45 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]