The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1301  
Old 03-16-2018, 01:07 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades CA, United States
Posts: 4,421
'Trusty', it's such quaint language. And to be 'right trusty'! I'm going to start using it.

This is my 'right trusty' friend from Australia......
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 03-16-2018, 01:08 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,735
Of course there are folks who hoped and thought it was a slight. That is not how the Queen works nor would she do something like that so publicly. She has made her and the BRF's acceptance of Meghan pretty clear. Anyways, I am glad they resolved it but it is sad it had to go that way because some in the press turned it into something negative to try to paint a bad picture of Meghan and the family.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 03-16-2018, 01:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Of course there are folks who hoped and thought it was a slight.
Just as there are those desperate to detect racism/classism/snobbery within the BRF !

They must be sorely disappointed, as they will continue to be...
Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 03-16-2018, 01:22 PM
Nico's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 2,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Just as there are those desperate to detect racism/classism/snobbery within the BRF !

They must be sorely disappointed, as they will continue to be...
Hear ! Hear !
Works both ways indeed !
Glad this topic about used or unused words is resolved, but you can't prevent "folks" (as used by some members) to ask questions.
I remember quite well when Charles and Camilla got engaged the never ending hunt for any sign of snub/ shade from the Queen... c'est la vie !
Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 03-16-2018, 01:32 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
Just as there are those desperate to detect racism/classism/snobbery within the BRF !

They must be sorely disappointed, as they will continue to be...
I don't disagree. Sometimes people look for something that isn't there.

Same as I don't think every negative comment or critique is laced in racism, classism, etc though some clearly are and are called out.

Most understood it was no slight which is why despite many having difference of opinions came together figure it out.
Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 03-16-2018, 01:55 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 3,683
Sorry to say bit using the word "trusty " to describe a person seems strange to me. A car is trusty, a hammer is trusty; I think for a human being another word should be used like reliable, trust worthy, trusted.
Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 03-16-2018, 02:00 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post




The Queen has never denied permission for anyone to marry during her entire time on the throne. It wasn’t going to start with Meghan.
This, precisely this. If the Queen was going to deny her permission a public engagement wouldn’t happen - consider what happened with Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend; it was determined before any engagement that the Queen would not be able to grant permission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I never thought she would have any reason to. But there are some that said HMQ would. Just expanded on an point that you made about no one thought the lack of trusty and well-beloved was something against Meghan.

There are some who have said that because they don’t like Meghan (for whatever reason they have) and have no understanding of how things actually work. They see the granting of permission as a formal thing that happens after the engagement and is necessary for the Queen to express her feelings, but that’s not the real world. The granting of permission is a rubber stamp thing that happens after the fact - again, if the Queen wasn’t going to grant permission, that would be determined before any engagement announcement is made.
Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 03-16-2018, 02:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
seems strange to me.
That is because it is archaic, a usage 'shrouded in the mists of Time', like so much of the ritual we have inherited [and value] from the past and is preserved by our Royal House.

Naturally it seems strange to cultures 'that much more recent'..
Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 03-16-2018, 02:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
Fascinating.
Hoe does the permission-thing work exactly?
Does Harry specifically has to ask the Queens permission? And how does that work, are there speciaal ceremonies/ protocols for that?
I don't know if the person who gets married has to ask the Queen directly for her permission, but the way it works is described in some detail in the Explanatory Notes for the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

As explained in Note 20, the consent must be declared in Council and recorded in the books of the Privy Council. The Instrument of Consent technically does not require countersignature by government ministers, but , as explained in Note 19, the constitutional practice is " for Ministers to be informed of a proposed marriage of a person close in the succession to the Throne, and to have the opportunity of giving formal advice to Her Majesty as to whether consent should be given." Therefore, it is safe to assume that Meghan was also vetted by the British government.

In other countries, the role of the government is more explicit than in the UK. For example:

  1. In the Netherlands, consent is actually given by an Act of Parliament passed in a joint session of the two chambers. The consent bill is normally introduced in the joint session by the government on behalf of the King.
  2. In Sweden, under the amended Act of Succession, consent is given by the government, rather than the King. However, the government can only give its consent to a royal marriage if asked by the King to do so, meaning in practice that a double consent from the King and the government is required.
  3. In Belgium, consent is given by royal decree. Unlike the Instrument of Consent in the UK, the royal decree in Belgium must be countersigned, however, by one or more government ministers, see an example on page 2 here. In that example, the royal decree consenting to the marriage of Prince Amedeo of Belgium was countersigned by the prime minister and the justice minister. Note that, according to the preamble, Prince Amedeo formally asked for the consent and the royal decree was issued in response to his request, which is quite interesting.


Spain, on the other hand, is somewhat unique in the sense that, under the constitution of 1978, neither the King nor the Cortes (i.e the Spanish Parliament) are required to give formal consent to royal marriages. Instead, there is only a negative requirement that there must not be an explict prohibition of the marriage contract either by the King or the Cortes. The consent clause in Spain is much weaker in this sense than in other countries.


In a way, the consent rules in the UK are also weaker now, because, again as explained in the link above, the legal requirement of consent now applies only to individuals who, when they get married, are among the first six persons in line to the throne. In other countries, the consent requirement normally applies to all persons in the line of succession, but, in all cases, the only legal consequence of a marriage without consent is that the person who marries and his/her future descendants forfeit their succession rights. Otherwise, the marriage itself is legally valid, unlike what happened in the UK under the old Royal Marriages Act 1772.
Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 03-16-2018, 02:50 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,602
Since sovereign's consent is required by law, I imagine the Royal brides and grooms have been vetted, especially for family, finances, brushes with the law, etc,. especially Camilla and Kate because they are going to be consort of future sovereigns. In Meghan's case I bet her first marriage was checked out to make sure it was properly and legally dissolved. The consents in my opinion announces they found nothing of consequence, and anyone doing tell alls now have credibility problems.
Reply With Quote
  #1311  
Old 03-16-2018, 02:50 PM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,309
Thank you for the explanation.
Reply With Quote
  #1312  
Old 03-16-2018, 03:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,926
At the Cambridge wedding the part of the service where the priest says “If any man can so just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together in holy matrimony, speak now or else hereafter forever hold your peace”.

According to press there were lawyers right on hand from both the Palace and Church in case there was an objection.

I suspect the same for Harry and Meghan
Reply With Quote
  #1313  
Old 03-16-2018, 03:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
Since sovereign's consent is required by law, I imagine the Royal brides and grooms have been vetted, especially for family, finances, brushes with the law, etc,. especially Camilla and Kate because they are going to be consort of future sovereigns. In Meghan's case I bet her first marriage was checked out to make sure it was properly and legally dissolved. The consents in my opinion announces they found nothing of consequence, and anyone doing tell alls now have credibility problems.
Agreed. Assuming those matters are still taken seriously (as they should be), consent is only withheld if something of consequence is found about the bride/groom. Sophie, Camilla, Kate, Meghan and, in other countries, other (controversial ?) brides like Máxima, Sofia, or Mette-Marit all passed the test and, therefore, should be considered suitable royal consorts.

The most important lesson for me is that, although we often hear that royals can now "marry anyone" (in the sense of marrying commoners, or "marrying for love"), that is still techically not 100 % true as long as the legal barrier of the consent still remains.
Reply With Quote
  #1314  
Old 03-16-2018, 07:52 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,540
I'd like to congratulate everyone who has participated in this recent discussion about the Queen's permission, the Instrument of Consent and contributed to the in depth thinking and researching that was done in the past couple of days. You have now completed The British Royal Marriage Act 101 with flying colors.

An interesting trivial fact to consider is that up until the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 was amended in 2015, the Queen's permission was needed quite a bit more than just among marriages in her own family. On 11 January 1999, Queen Elizabeth II issued a Declaration in Council with permission for Prince Ernest August of Hanover to marry Princess Caroline of Monaco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince...ver_(born_1954)
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1315  
Old 03-16-2018, 08:40 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 3,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
At the Cambridge wedding the part of the service where the priest says “If any man can so just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together in holy matrimony, speak now or else hereafter forever hold your peace”.

According to press there were lawyers right on hand from both the Palace and Church in case there was an objection.

I suspect the same for Harry and Meghan
LoL that's kind of funny. What were they going to do if someone objected based on non legal and non religious reasons?
Reply With Quote
  #1316  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:07 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,628
After the new baby, harry will be sixth in line so the last who needs consent, right?
Reply With Quote
  #1317  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:53 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,735
Yes Harry will drop down to 6th and will be the last to need permission which clearly has been given. So the next big wedding like this will be one of the Cambridge kids in 20 some years.
Reply With Quote
  #1318  
Old 03-16-2018, 10:07 PM
Princess Larisa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: ., Croatia
Posts: 3,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
After the new baby, harry will be sixth in line so the last who needs consent, right?
Yes, after the baby is born he’ll be number 6. And when Charles becomes king he’ll go back to being number 5. And if Charles dies before George has kids, Harry will be number 4. And then when Cambridge kids have children he’ll go back down in numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #1319  
Old 03-16-2018, 10:28 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: small town, United States
Posts: 87
I think, in the case of Marina Mowatt, the Queen's permission for the marriage omitted the usual wording of "our trusty and well-beloved cousin" and just said "our cousin,".

I read it in her thread on these forums, but I have not seen the actual document.
Reply With Quote
  #1320  
Old 03-16-2018, 11:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
s.

An interesting trivial fact to consider is that up until the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 was amended in 2015, the Queen's permission was needed quite a bit more than just among marriages in her own family. On 11 January 1999, Queen Elizabeth II issued a Declaration in Council with permission for Prince Ernest August of Hanover to marry Princess Caroline of Monaco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince...ver_(born_1954)
Consent was required for all descendants of King George II, male or female, except the issue of princesses who had married or might thereafter marry "into foreign families". According to one popular (but disputed) theory, that loophole would actually exempt all current living members of the BRF, as all of them are descendants of foreign princesses whose ancestors were themselves British princesses who married into foreign royal families.

Anyway, the current provisions under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772, are far more rational, although I personally think that restricting the consent requirement only to the first six persons in line to the throne might be too narrow.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Meghan Markle: Future Tiaras and Jewels soapstar Royal Jewels General Discussion 197 01-09-2020 11:29 AM
Meghan Markle: Family and Background - November 2017-May 2018 soapstar The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 3419 06-19-2018 02:39 PM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Dress Suggestions and Musings soapstar Royal Style File 1819 05-19-2018 07:22 AM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Tiara and Jewelry Suggestions and Musings Tilia C. Royal Jewels General Discussion 999 05-19-2018 07:02 AM




Popular Tags
administrator archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy bangladesh belgian royal belgian royal family chittagong crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex dutch royal family dutch royals family search french royalty future future wife of prince hussein germany haakon vii hamdan bin mohammed hill history house of bernadotte house of grimaldi israel jerusalem jumma lithuania lithuanian palaces mailing meghan markle monaco royal monarchy mountbatten netflix nobel prize norway history official visit pakistan popularity prince charles prince daniel prince harry princely family of monaco princess benedikte princess margaret pronunciation qe2 queen mathilde queen maud queen paola rown royal tour state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish history thailand tracts trump united kingdom unsubscribe valois visit from sweden working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×