British Royal Family Current Events 1: November 2002-November 2005 - Page 4

Jenna1186 · #61 05-15-2003, 05:16 PM

Hey Julia,

Thanks for the info.I haven't made my mind up yet on this subject, but what Hugh Vickers says has a ring of true to it.I remember this past christmas and all the attention Prince Philip got because of some bruises.

Josefine · #62 05-15-2003, 06:25 PM

1.Portrait of Prince Charles on His 18th Birthday

2-6.picture from www.corbis.com

Benn · #63 05-21-2003, 12:10 PM

I think this is interesting, let me know what you think.

8. If King James II hadn't been overthrown in 1688/1689, who would be the sovereign today?

If King James II hadn't been overthrown in 1688/1689, Europe's history would have been very different in many ways. At some level, the question is impossible to answer, because it requires conjectures about three hundred years' worth of history; in particular, about what marriages would have taken place and what the issue would have been. Different people would have been on the throne, and they would have certainly married differently.

If King James II hadn't been overthrown in 1688/89, and if all births, marriages and deaths had taken place exactly the way they did in fact take place, Franz, Duke of Bavaria (b. 1933) would be the sovereign today. Franz, who is the great-grandson of the last King of Bavaria, is known as Francis II , King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland to his Jacobite followers since the death of his father in July 1996. Franz finds himself in this position because he is the senior co-heir general (senior representative) of King Charles I. Following the death of the last legitimate descendant of James II (Henry IX, called Duke of York, Bishop of Ostia and Velletri, Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, Dean of the Sacred College, Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica) in July 1807, the right to the (Jacobite) throne passed through the royal families of Sardinia, Modena and Bavaria. The immediate heirs of Franz (he is unmarried and childless) are his brother Prince Max, duke in Bavaria (b. 1937) and his eldest daughter Sophie (b. 1967) who is married to Hereditary Prince Aloïs of Liechtenstein. Their eldest child, Prince Joseph Wenzel, was born in London in May 1995.

There are some individuals who question the validity of the Wittelsbach/Jacobite claim which came through a niece-uncle marriage. It was raised by W. J. Palmer in "The Jacobite Heir: A Doubt", published in The Genealogists' Magazine, vol. 12, no. 6 (June 1956), pp 188-189, and was answered by Philip M. Thomas in "The Jacobite Heir: A Doubt Allayed" in the same Magazine, vol. 12, no. 8 (December 1956), pp 273-275. The answer is that British law recognizes, as valid, marriages which would not be valid in Britain if the marriage was valid in the place where (a) the marriage occurred and (B) where the person was domiciled. Since the niece, Princess Maria Beatrice of Sardinia (1792-1840), was domiciled in Sardinia, where her father was King, and her uncle the Duke of Modena, Francesco IV (1779-1846), was domiciled in Modena, and the marriage was valid there (Papal dispensation, etc.), the marriage is then valid in Britain.

This the link:
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-7

Jacqueline · #64 05-23-2003, 03:08 PM

Guardian claims right to free speech

Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
Wednesday May 21, 2003

The Guardian

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, is taking the Guardian to Britain's highest court today to try to stop the newspaper's challenge to a 155-year-old law which still makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print.
Lord Goldsmith is appealing to the House of Lords against a ruling by three appeal court judges last year that the paper should be allowed to argue its case in the high court for a reinterpretation of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in the light of human rights law.

The act, passed amid concern over the spread of republican sentiment after the French and American revolutions, made it a serious offence, punishable by transportation, to call for the establishment of a republic in print or writing, even by peaceful means. It remains in force, though last used in 1883, with life imprisonment as the maximum penalty.

The Guardian's challenge followed the launch of its campaign in December 2000 for the establishment of a republic by peaceful means in the UK. Before publishing a series of articles on the subject, the editor, Alan Rusbridger, asked the then attorney general, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to confirm that the paper and its staff would not face prosecution under the act. He wrote back: "It is not for any attorney general to disapply an act of parliament; that is a matter for parliament itself."

The paper argues that section 3 of the act, which makes it an offence to call for an end to the monarchy, can no longer stand since the Human Rights Act, which came into force in December 2000, incorporates into English law article 10 of the European convention on human rights, guaranteeing freedom of expression.

The paper is seeking a court declaration that section 3 is incompatible with the guarantee in the convention. Alternatively, it wants the court to reword the 1848 act so the offence is limited to seeking a republic by violent means.

The application was thrown out by two high court judges, but the appeal judges sent the case back, saying: "We consider it would not be in the interests of justice to prevent the matters raised in this application from being fully argued." Lord Justice Schiemann found "powerful arguments in favour of free speech and also of having our criminal law formulated in such a way that the citizen can see what is prohibited and what is not".

Lawyers for the attorney general are expected to argue in the Lords that a ruling in favour of the Guardian would open the civil courts to being asked to give advice on whether or not an action would be a criminal offence.

Such declarations, they will argue, should be limited to the most exceptional cases, such as that of the Hillsborough disaster victim Tony Bland, who was in a permanent vegetative state but not allowed to die while possible prosecution hung over his doctors.

Mr Rusbridger said yesterday: "I'm slightly surprised the attorney general should be going to such lengths to preserve a law last used to persecute journalists for daring to criticise Queen Victoria.

"Last week the government was protesting about Robert Mugabe deporting journalists. This week it is fighting to keep a similar law on the books in Britain. It's ridiculous and, in the example it sets, dangerous."

Article From: The Guardian

Jenna1186 · #65 05-23-2003, 10:51 PM

Hey Jacqueline,

Once again I have to say thanks for the interesting article.I was born and raised in the USA, so I suppose I take certain personal freedoms for granted.Reading articles like this makes me realise how truely lucky I am to live in a place, where I can say what I want as long as it not slanderous and not face punishment.

rattie21 · #66 05-23-2003, 11:25 PM

www.royalmail.com/royal

Jenna1186 · #67 05-25-2003, 08:37 AM

PRINCE HARRY

SPORTING

Prince Harry's famous love of sport isn't just part of his charm, it's part of his wardrobe. Always active – Eton cadet military exercises, skiiing, rugby, football and polo are among his preferred pastimes – the teenager appears to have a closet full of clothing fit for a budding royal action man.

From Hello.

Jenna1186 · #68 05-25-2003, 08:44 AM

PRINCE WILLIAM

PRINCE CHARMING

With his lean physique and shy smile, it's clear that Prince William doesn't need eye-catching clothing to keep heads turning. Even when he opts for standard university student fashion – button-down shirts and crew-neck sweaters seem to be among the Prince's wardrobe staples – any girl in Wills company can't help feeling like a princess.

From Hello.