The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:34 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
I think what SkyDragon means is that whatever the previous monarchs did, everything changed with Henry VIII when he created his own church. The Church of England was created to allow Henry to re-marry. But really, all this is by the by because C and C are married already. And so all the rest comes naturally.
__________________

__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #702  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:38 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
I not understand your point
You said "the monarchy have 1203 years old from EGBERT, from him there was no king without being married according to church."

As Henry changed the church, your statement can not apply.
__________________

  #703  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:38 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
yes, said King Cynowulf of Wessex was the fisrt king (was the first king of wessex) but Egbert (king of wessex) was the first king of engand. I notsay nothing abuot the church.
Henry change the church for marry to bolena, but i posted abuot the kings of wessex
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #704  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:39 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I think what SkyDragon means is that whatever the previous monarchs did, everything changed with Henry VIII when he created his own church. The Church of England was created to allow Henry to re-marry. But really, all this is by the by because C and C are married already. And so all the rest comes naturally.
Exactly, Thank You.:) They will make wonderful monarchs.
  #705  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:40 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
no, I said that monarchy has 1203 years and any the kings married according to civilian and not by church. All married for the church, the Christian and the protestant when Henry changed it.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #706  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:44 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
They will make wonderful monarchs.
Here Here! To be honest, I can't believe we're going over this 'Will she be Queen' buisness when we all know the answer. Whatever we feel, whatever we would like her to be or not to be for that matter - she will be Queen. And he will be King. And thats it. There's no chance of William coming first, Anne taking over, the Archbishop refusing the Crown, the Government passing a law to stop her becoming Queen etc etc.

It's time to stop clutching at straws and accept it.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #707  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:47 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
look, is very simple look back in the history. the monarchy have 1203 years old from EGBERT, from him there was no king without being married according to church. I do not say this, is in history.
I must have misunderstood the post. I read it as saying that without being married according to the church, Egbert and subsequent Kings could not be Kings:)
  #708  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:48 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
There's no chance of William coming first.
Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #709  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:49 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Here Here! To be honest, I can't believe we're going over this 'Will she be Queen' buisness when we all know the answer. Whatever we feel, whatever we would like her to be or not to be for that matter - she will be Queen. And he will be King. And thats it. There's no chance of William coming first, Anne taking over, the Archbishop refusing the Crown, the Government passing a law to stop her becoming Queen etc etc.

It's time to stop clutching at straws and accept it.
Beautifully put as usual!:)
  #710  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
What is everyone's thought on this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051108...a_051108134040

Do you think it's time to seperate the Crown from the Church of England? Even Charles has said that he wants to be "Defender of Faith," not "Defender of the Faith"...
  #711  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 217
I'm sorry! I didn't read the thread back far enough!
  #712  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:52 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.
No it isn't. Unless Charles dies, William will not become King before him. Succession doesn't skip anyone. When the Queen dies, Charles will automatically become King. If after an hour, he abdicates in favour of William, he will still have been the King if only for an hour.

Thats the facts. The Queen cannot cut her son out of the succession. Its determined by God - not by man.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #713  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:52 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon
I must have misunderstood the post. I read it as saying that without being married according to the church, Egbert and subsequent Kings could not be Kings:)
the lineis successory, if the father is king, the son at some moment will be king
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #714  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:53 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arctica, Antarctica
Posts: 2,052
Quote:
Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.
The Queen has absolutly no say or controll what so ever over succesion. If that is not clear enough than I do not know what is. The LAW of the land says that Charles and Camilla will be King and Queen Consort when the present Queen Regent dies. The Queen has no say whatsovere. The law is law.
  #715  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:56 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.
It isn't the Queen's choice, it's a matter of the law.
  #716  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:58 PM
corazon's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: -In some dark place-, Argentina
Posts: 2,046
the law is the law, I agree, but the queen is the unique person who can ask charles who abdicates if she considers that is the best thing for the crown or no. For that reason I say thatis into the hands of the queen, no us.
__________________
Today the world has embraced new royal Princesses in the form of Mary of Denmark and Maxima of the Netherlands. But it's questionable whether even these hugely popular, increasingly glamorous future Queens will ever capture the world's imagination in the same way as Diana.
As Mario acknowledges: "She really was a true Princess".
-www.theroyalist.net-
  #717  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:58 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
No it isn't. Unless Charles dies, William will not become King before him. Succession doesn't skip anyone. When the Queen dies, Charles will automatically become King. If after an hour, he abdicates in favour of William, he will still have been the King if only for an hour.

Thats the facts. The Queen cannot cut her son out of the succession. Its determined by God - not by man.
No it ain't. It's determined by the government. Much as Tony Blair might think he's God, I don't think things have gone that far.
  #718  
Old 11-08-2005, 05:59 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arctica, Antarctica
Posts: 2,052
It is still not in the Queens hand. The Queen will be dead when Charles is King. She will not be there to tell him to abdicate. And the Queen has shown herslef to be trying to help Charles and Camilla be accepted as future King and Queen. She is working hard to present them in a good picture. She supports her son completly. The Queen has no say.
  #719  
Old 11-08-2005, 06:02 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by corazon
the law is the law, I agree, but the queen is the unique person who can ask charles who abdicates if she considers that is the best thing for the crown or no. For that reason I say thatis into the hands of the queen, no us.
Well, if that sort of wishful thinking is important to you, you can carry on fantasising if you really want to. But the Queen, unlike some other people, will be looking at a broader view than just the fact that some people still have a need to punish Charles for what happened to Diana. And, let's face it, that's what this is all about when it's being promoted by people who are die-hard Diana fans. It isn't about the good of the country, it's simply a desire for payback.
  #720  
Old 11-08-2005, 06:02 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arctica, Antarctica
Posts: 2,052
Quote:
No it isn't. Unless Charles dies, William will not become King before him. Succession doesn't skip anyone. When the Queen dies, Charles will automatically become King. If after an hour, he abdicates in favour of William, he will still have been the King if only for an hour.

Thats the facts. The Queen cannot cut her son out of the succession. Its determined by God - not by man.


I think Beatrixfan ment that it is in Gods hand that, if you do believe in God, only he can controll who is born into the Royal Family. No one but God chooses who is in the RF and who will be the future monarch. I think thats where By The Grace of God come from.
__________________

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
Reign of Felipe VI: How Will Things Be Different? muriel King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 90 01-03-2017 06:30 PM
“The Lady Queen: the Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sic An Ard Ri Royal Library 0 07-06-2014 07:27 PM
Is Victoria Ready to Reign? NotAPretender Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 20 06-19-2011 07:05 AM
Elizabeth II: Oldest British Monarch (Dec 20 2007); 2nd Longest Reign (May 12 2011) WindsorIII Queen Elizabeth II 33 05-30-2011 07:40 AM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:17 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×