Camilla and The Public

[Skippyboo]

It isn't an election. A poll does not indicate what will happen. If a poll said the 65% of people asked wanted Harry to be King after Queen Elizabeth, is the government going to change the line of succession- no.

Also the wording of a question will influence a poll, was the question this versus that, yes or no, or opened ended.

Also if the royal marriages act is satisfied, how is a civil wedding not valid? Marriage is a civil agreement. A religious church wedding still needs a civil marriage license. Divorce is done thru the government not the church.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Rudolph]

Camilla can't become Queen because she's not legally married to Charles – Telegraph Blogs

A second Marriage Act was passed in 1949 and that contained a similar exclusion clause: "Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family." On the face of it, that is pretty clear cut: the prohibition on members of the Royal Family getting married in civil ceremonies remained.

That was certainly the view of John Major's government. This was clear from a government briefing document circa 1996 that was uncovered by The Times under a Freedom of Information request. "Members of the Royal Family are excepted from the provisions of the Marriage Act of 1949, and their marriages in England and Wales must therefore be performed by Anglican clergy under either a Special or Common Licence," it stated.

This was also the view of Lord Lyell of Mary-yate, the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce. He raised doubts about the lawfulness of a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla in February, 2005 when they first announced their intention to marry.

 

[Elenath]

Camilla can't become Queen because she's not legally married to Charles – Telegraph Blogs

Apparently the government disagrees.

"The Government are satisfied that it is lawful for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles, like anyone else, to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the Marriage Act 1949. Civil marriages were introduced in England, by the Marriage Act 1836. Section 45 said that the Act "... shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family". But the provisions on civil marriage in the 1836 Act were repealed by the Marriage Act 1949. All remaining parts of the 1836 Act, including Section 45, were repealed by the Registration Service Act 1953. No part of the 1836 Act therefore remains on the statute book. ...

Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dman]

I think the public has embraced Camilla but I think the palace and Clarence House maintain the title of HRH The Princess Consort for Camilla for a reason. I think the titles of Her Majesty The Queen or HRH The Princess Consort is just fine.

 

[Rudolph]

Apparently the government disagrees.



Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's my point. Two different governments disagreed on the legalities. Maybe Charles doesn't know for 100 percent certainty if he is legally married.

Just because Tony Blair says it so doesn't mean it is. John Major's government said its illegal

 

[Jacknch]

Case law should be enough to provide that the marriage between Charles and Camilla is legal - many of our laws here are based upon case law. Provided that the Government's view that their marriage is legal has been properly instituted in one of the mechanisms enabling it to be legal then I cannot see that there is a problem.

 

[Rudolph]

I'm not saying they aren't married just that reasonable people could argue the case if they wanted

Its obviously not cut and dry because many experts to this day say the marriage isn't legal

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I think the public has embraced Camilla but I think the palace and Clarence House maintain the title of HRH The Princess Consort for Camilla for a reason. I think the titles of Her Majesty The Queen or HRH The Princess Consort is just fine.

Princess Consort would be a demotion from her current title, wouldn't it? (Please, only UK people (and ILUVBertie) answer. I can see no reason why she shouldn't be Queen Consort.

Anyway, it was Camilla's decision to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. She could use The Princess of Wales if she were so inclined. I think this should show everyone what a fine woman she is, as there wasn't any foot stomping or chest thumping that accompanied the decision (well, Charles may have done some foot stomping, but I think Camilla was sort of "sure, I didn't marry him for the title, anyway.".

 

[tommy100]

I'd love to see what the results would be in a poll where is was a case of should Camilla get the title Queen or end tradition by getting no title at all? I reckon its only because people keep offering up the Princess Consort thing that people support it so much. Give them a title / no title situation I wonder what the results would be.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I hope someone does conduct a poll and it is overwhelmingly positive for Queen Camilla.

I understand your point but, as I pointed out before, virtually every religion, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism prohibit adultery. So although 59.3% consider themselves Christian, there are people of other faiths who have may have a different point of view.

How many of the cited faiths you mention prohibit adultery for both men and women? I think it's just the girls who are punished, no?

Anyway, what's the problem, neither Charles nor Camilla will be "ruling" the people.

This is a new religion...Nutsism.

 

[wyevale]

There is NO PROVISION in British law for a wife to be denied 'the rank and title of her Husband'. To alter that would be a major change, for it would have to apply to ALL married women [if applied to Camilla alone it would be discrimnatory, and subject to challenge under 'Human Rights' legislation].

Will the govt [of the day] really want to open that particular can of worms, in the immediate aftermath of the death of a much loved monarch, and at a time of near universal mourning ?

I really don't think so...

 

[Dman]

I think with Camilla conducting her royal life under the title 'Duchess of Cornwall' I think she's proven that she didn't need to be titled 'Princess of Wales' to support Charles and the monarchy. I think it should be perfectly fine for Camilla to go by HRH The Princess Consort in the future. If she end up being Her Majesty The Queen Consort, I think everyone should respect it.

 

[royalistbert]

I am more worried about future wives than Camilla. It could be the end of all Queen consorts.

 

[Dman]

I am more worried about future wives than Camilla. It could be the end of all Queen consorts.

I really don't think so. No one is questioning Catherine's future titles or George's future wife titles. It's all about Camilla and her future title.

 

[Skippyboo]

Every wife of a King has been a Queen. Why create a lower title for Camilla? If she going to do the duties of a Queen, be the highest ranked woman in the land, she should be Queen.

It would be different if Camilla married Charles but didn't perform any royal duties and lived as a private citizen.

Also if you are going to argue morality because of the adultery, then neither Charles or Camilla or most of the previous Kings should be on the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Don't forget that between John Major's government and 2005 there was a very important piece of legislation that changed the ground rules - The Human Rights Act.

That makes is clear that EVERYONE is entitled to be married. With that legislation the advice to the Major government becomes irrelevant as later legislation changed things clearly.

By 2005 it was the Human Rights legislation that allowed Charles to marry in a civil ceremony whereas before that legislation members of the royal family could only legally marry in a religious ceremony.

 

[Rudolph]

It is still only an opinion the Human Rights Act applies to the marriage of Charles and Camilla. It hasn't actually been challenged. I have the names of constitutional professors that say in 2014 the marriage isn't legal

 

[Osipi]

Every wife of a King has been a Queen. Why create a lower title for Camilla? If she going to do the duties of a Queen, be the highest ranked woman in the land, she should be Queen.

It would be different if Camilla married Charles but didn't perform any royal duties and lived as a private citizen.

Also if you are going to argue morality because of the adultery, then neither Charles or Camilla or most of the previous Kings should be on the throne.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It is my understanding that if the title of Princess Consort was to be created, it could only be done by creating Camilla, herself, as a princess of the UK in her own right. It would be comparable to HM creating the DoE as a prince of the UK in his own right.

 

[Rudolph]

Lord Lyell of Mary-yate, the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce raised doubts about the lawfulness of a civil marriage between Charles and Camilla in February, 2005 when they first announced their intention to marry.

This is what prompted Lord Falconer to mention the Human Rights Act but again this is only Falconer's opinion and not a fact.

 

[Nico]

This is what prompted Lord Falconer to mention the Human Rights Act but again this is only Falconer's opinion and not a fact.

But in the facts it works isn't it ? After the Human Rights act the C and c wedding is legit. So if an Act of Parliament says so, i don't think it's a mere opinion ?

 

[Rudolph]

The Human Rights Act doesn't explicitly say the marriage between Charles and Camilla is legal. That is the opinion of Lord Falconer, others just as learned such as the opinion of Lord Lyell of Mary-yate, the Attorney-General at the time of Charles's and Diana's divorce say it isn't lawful

Only a court can decide this

 

[wyevale]

Rudolph..

Do you seriously think the High Court will judge the marriage of the Head of State illegal ?

 

[Rudolph]

I'm just stating there are people out there that think the marriage isn't lawful. I first mentioned this as a reason behind why Charles continues on the Princess Consort line. Maybe he doubts the legality of his marriage

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Human Rights legislation says that everyone has the right to marry - that is clear.

The AG's opinion at the time of the divorce is irrelevant as that was BEFORE the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998. The situation today has to be viewed in the light of current legislation and not on the situation before that legislation. Before the legislation it was definitely not possible for Charles to make a civil marriage and so the AG at the time of the divorce was correct but that was in 1996 two years before the legislation was passed which changed the situation.

If you have names of constitutional experts who claim that later legislation doesn't override earlier one I suggest that they check their legal qualifications. There have been a number of marriage laws passed in the UK that relate to the royal family but none of them can take precedence of the Human Rights Act which is the latest act to relate to marriage.

 

[Rudolph]

Lord Lyell of Mary-yate gave his opinion in 2005 and he is more familiar with the Human Rights Act than anyone of us commenting on it

 

[Rudolph]

At the time of Lord Falconer's statement his view was vigorously contested by experts in family law and was widely regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the law that was typical of Tony Blair's government.

 

[scooter]

Princess Consort would be a demotion from her current title, wouldn't it? (Please, only UK people (and ILUVBertie) answer. I can see no reason why she shouldn't be Queen Consort.

Talk about skewing the poll results! ;-P

 

[scooter]

At the time of Lord Falconer's statement his view was vigorously contested by experts in family law and was widely regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the law that was typical of Tony Blair's government.

Yes, I remember this discussion clearly.

 

[Rudolph]

I'm just trying to find a logical explanation as to why Charles and Camilla don't want her to be Queen and the legality over the marriage comes to mind.

The official reason of Camilla doesn't "want" to be Queen isn't good enough. If she doesn't want to be Queen she shouldn't have married the Prince of Wales

 

[Skippyboo]

It's not like you have children involved who may or may not be in the line of succession based on the legality of their marriage.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community