The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 02-17-2022, 07:13 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 10,314
The press also spoke at the time about Amanda Knatchbull, who reportedly turned down a marriage proposal from Prince Charles.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...-house-windsor
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-17-2022, 07:54 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Member - in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
Amanda and Charles always got along very well but there wasn't any "spark" there. They've remained close ever since. I think, really, that the Amanda and Charles duo was a hope of "Uncle Dickie" Mountbatten. It just didn't pan out though. It wasn't long after Amanda turned down Charles that things started heating up between Charles and Diana at Cowes Week.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-17-2022, 08:39 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 42
I think Camilla has always been The One, but Dickie Mountbatten told Charles:
(1) sow your oats
(2) you have got to pick a virgin
(3) she needs to be aristocratic (and also he wanted Amanda)

Camilla was
(1) fun to sow oats with
(2) not a virgin
(3) not aristocratic

I think any discussion of other possibilities for Charles needs to include why Camilla wasn’t considered suitable. And she knew that she wasn’t suitable *at the time*, which is why she married Andrew PB.

Insisting on virginity meant someone young, naive, and unprepared (a recipe for disaster). Insisting on aristocracy was supposed to mean someone who understood what the future *marriage* would look like — a solid public marriage, with an understanding that there are private needs. Charles would be married to Diana, who was assumed to understand their marriage was mostly public and that there would (eventually) be lovers for each.

Charles came of age in a time of great social change and the insistence of Mountbatten (a modernizer!) and others that Charles stick to the old rules and marry a virginal aristocrat directly led to Diana’s unhappiness and death, which then led to Harry’s wrenching and dramatic self-ejection from his family.

What might the monarchy look like if Charles did not need to marry a virgin?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-17-2022, 09:30 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 10,550
What if Prince Charles had married a widowed young lady?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-18-2022, 05:00 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanHarry View Post
I think Camilla has always been The One, but ood what the future *marriage* would look like — a solid public marriage, with an understanding that there are private needs. Charles would be married to Diana, who was assumed to understand their marriage was mostly public and that there would (eventually) be lovers for each.

Charles came of age in a time of great social change and the insistence of Mountbatten (a modernizer!) and others that Charles stick to the old rules and marry a virginal aristocrat directly led to Diana’s unhappiness and death, which then led to Harry’s wrenching and dramatic self-ejection from his family.

What might the monarchy look like if Charles did not need to marry a virgin?
it didnt necessarily lead to all that. Diana was unfortunatly not just young but very fragile.. Harry's departure from the RF is due to his own decision, nothing to do with his fahter's marriage.
I dont think that the RF expected Charles to make a cynical marriage for public consumption.. just that he took care to select a bride who was well born, who knew about royal life, and who was aware that the marriage had to last so that if it DID go wrong, they would hanlde it discreetly rather than go for a divorce. Charles did try and find a girl who shared his interests and who was from a couriters family, but perhaps because he had left things a bit late, he ended up rushing it and marrying a girl he didn't know very well
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-18-2022, 06:24 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanHarry View Post
I think Camilla has always been The One, but Dickie Mountbatten told Charles:
(1) sow your oats
(2) you have got to pick a virgin
(3) she needs to be aristocratic (and also he wanted Amanda)

Camilla was
(1) fun to sow oats with
(2) not a virgin
(3) not aristocratic
[....]


Camilla's mother was the Honourable Rosalind Maud Cubitt.
Camilla's maternal grandfather was Roland Calvert Cubitt, 3rd Baron Ashcombe.
Camilla's maternal grandmother was the Honourable Sonia Rosemary Keppel (granddaughter of the 7th Earl of Albemarle and the 4th Baronet Edmonstone).

Camilla herself may not have the predicate of Honourable or Lady, she is not from the street. Together with Lady Diana she shares Louise Renée de Penancoët, Duchess of Portsmouth and Aubigny and King Charles II as ancestors - via the Gordon-Lennoxes (Dukes of Richmond), married into the Earls Spencer (Diana) and married into the Earls of Albemarle (Camilla).

If the dot comes to the i, the unmarried Camilla would have been acceptable, also in 1981: Antony Armstrong-Jones was acceptable, Mark Phillips was acceptable, Sarah Ferguson was acceptable, Sophie Rhys-Jones was acceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-18-2022, 07:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
The youngest of Carl Gustav's sisters, Princess Christina, is five years older than Charles, the eldes, Princess Margaretha, is 14 years older. I doubt Christina was ever considered for Charles as in addition to being older she also married in 1974, when Mountbatten was just beginning to bring up the idea of Charles marrying Amanda Knatchbull.

Foreign royals around Charles' age include:
  • Princess Marie-Christine of Belgium (born 1951), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Marie-Esmeralda of Belgium (born 1956), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Astrid of Belgium (born 1962), Roman Catholic
  • Queen Margrethe II of Denmark (born 1940), a foreign monarch
  • Princess Benedikte of Denmark (born 1944)
  • Princess Anne-Marie of Denmark (born 1946)
  • Princess Nora of Liechtenstein (born 1950), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Alexandra of Liechtenstein (born 1955), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Maria-Pia of Liechtenstein (born 1960), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Margarita of Liechtenstein (born 1950), Roman Catholic
  • Princes Maria Assunta of Liechtenstein (born 1952), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Isabelle of Liechtenstein (born 1954), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Marie Helene of Liechtenstein (born 1960), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Georgina of Liechtenstein (born 1996), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Marie Astrid of Luxembourg (born 1954), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg (born 1957), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Caroline of Monaco (born 1957), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Margreit of the Netherlands (born 1943)
  • Princess Christina of the Netherlands (born 1947)
  • Archduchess Andrea of Austria (born 1953), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Monika of Austria (born 1954), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Michaela of Austria (born 1956), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Walburga of Austria (born 1958), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Maria Beatrice of Austria (born 1954), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Maria del Pilar of Austria (born 1953), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Kinga Barbara of Austria (born 1955), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Myriam of Austria (born 1959), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Viridis of Austria (born 1961), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Alexandra of Austria (born 1952), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Maria Constanza of Austria (born 1957), Roman Catholic
  • Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria (born 1954), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Marie of Orleans (born 1959), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Catherine Bonaparte (born 1950), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Laure Bonaparte (born 1952), Roman Catholic
  • Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark (born 1942)
  • Princess Ines Maria of Bourbon-Parma (born 1940), Roman Catholic
  • Crown Princess Margareta of Romania (born 1949)
  • Princess Elena of Romania (born 1950)
  • Princess Irina of Romania (born 1953)
  • Princess Sophie of Romania (born 1957)
  • Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirov of Russia (born 1953)
  • Princess Olga Andreevna Romanoff (born 1950)
  • Princess Maria Tatiana of Yugoslavia (born 1957)
  • Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia (born 1959)
  • Princess Marie Cecile of Prussia (born 1942)
  • Princess Kira of Prussia (born 1943)
  • Princess Xenia of Prussia (born 1949)
  • Princess Marie of Hanover (born 1952)
  • Princess Alexandra of Hanover (born 1959)
  • Duchess Elisabeth of Mecklenburg (born 1947), Roman Catholic
  • Duchess Marie Catherine of Mecklenburg (born 1949), Roman Catholic
  • Duchess Irene of Mecklenburg (born 1952), Roman Catholic
  • Duchess Helene of Oldenburg (born 1953)
  • Princess Elisabeth of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (born 1945)
  • Princess Beatrice-Maria of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (born 1948)
  • Princess Claudia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (born 1949)
  • Princess Beatrice Charlotte of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (born 1951)
  • Princess Eleanore Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen (born 1950)
  • Princess Almut of Saxe-Meiningen (born 1959)
  • Princess Marita of Schleswig-Holstein (born 1948)
  • Princess Ingeborg of Schleswig-Holstein (born 1956)
  • Princess Marie of Lippe (born 1949)
  • Princess Regina of Lippe (born 1959)

As always, plenty of German Protestant princesses he could have chosen. Is a foreign queen consort unacceptable in the United Kingdom these days?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Maybe its just me but if its Charles we're talking about here, I don't think I've heard of any other heir to the throne that is more respecting of other faiths than he is. He is the man reputed to want to change "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of Faith" according to rumor.

Although I do believe it was done out of tradition and respect for tradition, when Prince Ernest August of Hanover wanted to marry Caroline (Grimaldi) of Monaco in 1999, he formally asked the Queen's permission to marry. No kingdom here and Caroline is Catholic but the tradition still stood.
It was not so much a question of tradition, but of law. The Royal Marriages Act required that Ernst August received the Queen's permission to marry for the marriage to be considered legal in the UK. E-A at time would be excluded anyway from the succession for marrying a Catholic, but his children would not if they were legitimate and baptized and raised as Protestants, which I believe is the case at least for his sons, who are members of Evagelical Lutheran Church of Hanover.


Although there is no chance of the Hanovers ever succeeding to the British throne, I believe that, for some reason, remaining in the line of succession matters to them, not least to stress their descent from former British sovereigns, which is why they have always made a point of complying with the Royal Marriages Act. Since the Royal Marriages Act was, however, repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, they don't have to worry about that anymore. BTW, the Succession to the Crown Act also restored E-A's position in the line of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-18-2022, 08:00 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,099
He was not going ot marry a foreign princess, unless he had fallen madly in love with her.. and that wasn't all that likely. the RF has married into the British aristocracy since the 1920s why would they change in the 1980s
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-18-2022, 08:03 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
What if Prince Charles had married a widowed young lady?
how on earth can anyone know? He could marry anyone he liked, in theory, as long as she was a Protestant.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-20-2022, 01:03 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,829
Camilla Shand was truly madly deeply in love with Andrew Parker Bowles when she married him. She liked Charles but there is no evidence that she started pining away for him until her own marriage to APB began to go sour due to Andrew's chronic infidelity.

Camilla might always have been The One for Charles, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"If your dreams don't scare you, they are not big enough" Sir Sidney Poitier
1927-2022
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-21-2022, 03:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlBranch View Post
Years ago, Prince Charles was not allowed to marry the woman he loved because of silly rules. We all know how much unhappiness that caused.
Later on, Prince William was allowed to marry the girl he loved even though she is a commoner and is not a virgin.
While I am aware that Prince Charles's first marriage grew unhappy, I have not heard of another proposed marriage (to Camilla Shand or anyone else) being vetoed because the would-be bride was a commoner or not a virgin. Is that information based on a reliable source?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-21-2022, 04:54 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 321
In my opinion, Charles couldn't marry Camilla because she was already married by the time he realized Camilla was the one. Even today, bigamy is against the law. It had nothing to do with her sexual history. It was the 1980's, not the 1880's. Most of the many women Charles dated were undoubtedly not virgins.

It's never been clear to me that Charles was actually being forced to marry a virgin, beyond his uncle's misogynistic advice and attitude. I'm not even sure the RF knew in advance that Diana's father was going to alert the press about his daughter's absence of sexual partners. Or how her father would even know she was a virgin.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-21-2022, 05:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,280
I think there were concerns than an ex-boyfriend might sell stories to the press. This did actually happen with Davina Sheffield - her former boyfriend told the press that they'd lived together. He didn't go into detail, but it was all rather awkward and embarrassing.

Charles couldn't marry Camilla because, at the time, she chose someone else over him. Charles went abroad, before marriage had even been mentioned. Whilst he was away, Camilla got engaged to Andrew Parker Bowles, whom she'd been dating on and off for a while. It never got to the point where Charles asked the Queen, Lord Mountbatten or anyone else if it would be OK for him to marry Camilla.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-21-2022, 06:13 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,740
Marrying someone who was already married at the time of course would be unlawful and, therefore, impossible, and that was the main problem with Camilla. Other than that, I doubt the Queen would forbid Charles from marrying whoever he wanted as long as the chosen bride was minimally suitable (e.g. was not a known drug addict or convicted criminal) and was not otherwise divorced and/or had children of her own.

Although Charles later married Camilla exactly under those latter circumstances, I don't think the Royal Family would be ready for a marriage of the heir apparent to a divorcee in 1981.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-21-2022, 06:54 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 42
I think there is another possibility. Charles and Camilla knew they could not get married from the moment they met for two reasons: First, at the time there was still a virgin requirement (in part because of stories from ex boyfriends being unseemly for a future Queen). Camilla was likely not a virgin when she met Charles.

Second, she was not considered aristocratic enough to marry a future King. Queen Mary was born a Princess. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was born a commoner and then part of the aristocracy at a time when future kings were supposed to marry other royals, but she did not marry someone who was expected to be King. She was acceptable for Bertie, who was never supposed to be crowned. Her merely being part of the aristocracy (and not royal) was new for a British consort. Queen Elizabeth married someone born a Prince. When it came time for Charles to marry, I believe he was expected to marry a royal or someone higher in the aristocracy than Camilla Shand.

Thus they both knew she was “unsuitable” from the start.
But they clicked. Can you imagine meeting someone, clicking, knowing you cannot be with them, and yet falling in love anyway?

She was also interested in Andrew PB and married him for several reasons, including trying to move on a build a life because she knew she and Charles would not be allowed to marry. She married Andrew, tried to move on, and set a tone that Charles should as well.

So Charles did his duty and married an higher-level aristocratic girl, since aristocrats “knew the rules” — that marriages at that level were more about marrying the “right” person from a public perspective. There would be a public marriage and private pleasure, as that had been common in those circles for a very long time.

When Charles and Camilla reconnected, they were still operating under those unspoken rules. Since they could not have married each other, Charles had the public marriage as expected, and saw Camilla for private pleasure. There are many examples of this in royal and aristocratic circles throughout history.

Diana, however, was a romantic and idealist and of a different generation. She did not understand that Charles and Camilla were operating under established, unspoken rules. It went so poorly for everyone that it continues to negatively affect each and every day for the British Royals (see recent Harry comments, his coming book, etc.).

Had there been a previous aristocratic marriage of someone Shand-level to a future king, it would have been much easier. But previous kings had only married royals, with the exception of Bertie, who was not meant to be king.

Charles and the Queen eventually figured out that they needed to change things going forward, and now we have our first future Queen, Catherine, who was a commoner. In addition, Prince Harry had even more latitude than William and was able to marry an American divorcee, succeeding where Edward could not, three generations prior.

Had Camilla Shand been considered suitable at the start, things may have looked startlingly different.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-21-2022, 07:04 PM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 24,972
As the queen allowed her daughter to marry Mr. Mark Philips and she allowed her sister to marry a Mr. Armstrong-Jones, I am not sure the royal/aristocratic birth was needed for the wife of the Prince of Wales. The Queen never seemed to be particulary narrow-minded on that account but remarkably modern for the time, at least from a continental perspective. Her sister was the first royal from a European royal family that married a non-noble commoner ánd retained her succession rights in a while. The British RF was more liberal in that aspect than other royal families, though I am not sure if Pss Patricia of Connaught retained her succession rights or not.

A bride from the upper classes was expected perhaps, which the Duchess of Cornwall is. And in the end Diana was the daughter of a relatively recent (15th century) and modest noble family, while Diana's mother's family was only ennobled in the 19th century - like the family of Camilla's mother.

As for the 'virginity' requirement. Is that a real thing or something that just gets repeated over and over again & becomes a truth on its own? Do you know what the source for that assumption is? Though it may very well be a correct one of course.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-21-2022, 07:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanHarry View Post
I think there is another possibility. Charles and Camilla knew they could not get married from the moment they met for two reasons: First, at the time there was still a virgin requirement (in part because of stories from ex boyfriends being unseemly for a future Queen). Camilla was likely not a virgin when she met Charles.

Second, she was not considered aristocratic enough to marry a future King. Queen Mary was born a Princess. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was born a commoner and then part of the aristocracy at a time when future kings were supposed to marry other royals, but she did not marry someone who was expected to be King. She was acceptable for Bertie, who was never supposed to be crowned. Her merely being part of the aristocracy (and not royal) was new for a British consort. Queen Elizabeth married someone born a Prince. When it came time for Charles to marry, I believe he was expected to marry a royal or someone higher in the aristocracy than Camilla Shand.

Thus they both knew she was “unsuitable” from the start.
But they clicked. Can you imagine meeting someone, clicking, knowing you cannot be with them, and yet falling in love anyway?

She was also interested in Andrew PB and married him for several reasons, including trying to move on a build a life because she knew she and Charles would not be allowed to marry. She married Andrew, tried to move on, and set a tone that Charles should as well.

So Charles did his duty and married an higher-level aristocratic girl, since aristocrats “knew the rules” — that marriages at that level were more about marrying the “right” person from a public perspective. There would be a public marriage and private pleasure, as that had been common in those circles for a very long time.

When Charles and Camilla reconnected, they were still operating under those unspoken rules. Since they could not have married each other, Charles had the public marriage as expected, and saw Camilla for private pleasure. There are many examples of this in royal and aristocratic circles throughout history.

Diana, however, was a romantic and idealist and of a different generation. She did not understand that Charles and Camilla were operating under established, unspoken rules. It went so poorly for everyone that it continues to negatively affect each and every day for the British Royals (see recent Harry comments, his coming book, etc.).

Had there been a previous aristocratic marriage of someone Shand-level to a future king, it would have been much easier. But previous kings had only married royals, with the exception of Bertie, who was not meant to be king.

Charles and the Queen eventually figured out that they needed to change things going forward, and now we have our first future Queen, Catherine, who was a commoner. In addition, Prince Harry had even more latitude than William and was able to marry an American divorcee, succeeding where Edward could not, three generations prior.

Had Camilla Shand been considered suitable at the start, things may have looked startlingly different.
Some English kings like Henry VIII and James II had married commoners before. To be honest, the requirement of "equal" royal marriages was a German custom more so than an English one. I am not sure for example that Edward VIII would have married a European princess if he hadn't married Wallis given how the British Royal Family distanced themselves from continental European royals following World War I. King George VI and the Queen Mother allegedly favored Princess Elizabeth marrying a British peer instead and were not particularly fond of her match with Prince Philip although Philip was related to several European royal houses and had impeccable royal credentials.

Furthermore, although Diana, as the daughter of an earl, had a higher social standing than Camilla, I don't see them as being radically different from each other in terms of family background once the requirement of an equal marriage to another royal is dropped.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-21-2022, 07:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
As the queen allowed her daughter to marry Mr. Mark Philips and she allowed her sister to marry a Mr. Armstrong-Jones, I am not sure the royal/aristocratic birth was needed for the wife of the Prince of Wales. The Queen never seemed to be particulary narrow-minded on that account but remarkably modern for the time, at least from a continental perspective. Her sister was the first royal from a European royal family that married a non-noble commoner ánd retained her succession rights in a long time.

A bride from the upper classes was expected perhaps, which the Duchess of Cornwall is. And in the end Diana was the daughter of a relatively recent and modest noble family while Diana's mother's family was only ennobled in the 19th century - like the family of Camilla's mother.

As for the 'virginity' requirement. Is that a real thing or something that just gets repeated over and over again & becomes a truth on its own? Do you know what the source for that assumption is? Though it may very well be a correct one of course.
I think it is more the fear of an old boyfriend telling tales , causing red faces rather than a truly innocent bride.

How anybody could truly know other than an ex partner defeats me. I
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-22-2022, 05:49 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I think it is more the fear of an old boyfriend telling tales , causing red faces rather than a truly innocent bride.

How anybody could truly know other than an ex partner defeats me. I
I agree, but it did happen that at least one boyfriend talked to the papers so I think that because of hte fear of that, Charles and the RF were wary if a girl was known within his own circles to have had a lot of partners. But I think that when Charles was invovled iwht Camilla, he was in love but she was not really committed that deeply. She loved him but she was more in love with Andrew PB and she did not want to marry Charles. Besides, Charles was quite young then and might have felt that he loved Camilla but he was a bit young to get married, so he wasn't sure what he wanted to do. I think if the 2 of them had been deeply in love and willing to wait several years, as Harald of Norway did with his wife, the RF would have come around in time, as social mores changed and became more liberal. If they had been dating for several years, and it seemed like both of them wanted ot marry each other and noone else, by the later 70s, the queen would have felt that she would have to give permission and that it was not likely to result in embarrassing stories because by now "everyone was doing it" . However, Camilla wasn't really willing to wait because she wasn't that keen on a royal marriage and she was in love with Andrew who was fond of her and willing to marry her though he was never welling to settle down. It was a case that Cam was the right woman for Chales but not at the right time.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-22-2022, 08:35 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,609
Is there a reliable source for the widespread assumption that Camilla Shand was (for one reason or another) considered controversial as a potential bride in the 1970s by either the royal family or by the British public? Or is that simply an assumption made by commentators?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It was not so much a question of tradition, but of law. The Royal Marriages Act required that Ernst August received the Queen's permission to marry for the marriage to be considered legal in the UK. E-A at time would be excluded anyway from the succession for marrying a Catholic, but his children would not if they were legitimate and baptized and raised as Protestants, which I believe is the case at least for his sons, who are members of Evagelical Lutheran Church of Hanover.


Although there is no chance of the Hanovers ever succeeding to the British throne, I believe that, for some reason, remaining in the line of succession matters to them, not least to stress their descent from former British sovereigns, which is why they have always made a point of complying with the Royal Marriages Act. Since the Royal Marriages Act was, however, repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, they don't have to worry about that anymore. BTW, the Succession to the Crown Act also restored E-A's position in the line of succession.
Moved here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Isn't it more likely that they simply wanted their marriages to be legal in the UK? Given that Ernst August holds a British passport, I imagine he and other members of his family possess assets in the UK, and a spouse and legitimate children would be differently placed than an unmarried partner and illegitimate children in respect of inheritance, for example.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
marriage, prince charles, what ifs


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 and Camilla: The Marriage (2005 and on) VuMom King Charles III and Queen Camilla 1605 05-26-2022 08:26 AM




Popular Tags
abdullah ii africa albert prince consort all tags arcadie arcadie claret austria caribbean caroline charles iii claret current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii emperor naruhito empress masako espana garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed harry history identifying india introduction king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco prince christian princess of orange queen queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials royal wedding silk spanish history spanish royal family state visit switzerland tiaras visit william wine glass woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises