The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1581  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:18 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage.
There had been quite some kings before who swore that oath without living according to the church's idea of morality. And upholding IMHO does not mean you have to become the slave of a church's idea of living, it just means that you protect this church.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #1582  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:21 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Well the point of a coronation may be moot if the Government decides to do away with the coronation upon Charles' accession. I don't think any of the major European monarchies have coronations any more so they would be keeping with the norms in Europe. Not necessarily that the British institution has wanted in the past to keep up with Europe but if the coronation is going to be a sticking point for Charles and Camilla's acceptance, it is far easier to just do away with the coronation on the excuse that its no longer appropriate for a modern monarchy.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1583  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:25 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
The plot thickens. I just read on another site that because of the Marriage Act 1836, Charles and Camilla may not be legally married. It states 'Civil unions shall not extend to the marriage of any members of the Royal Family', as such why would they have a civil service if there was the possibility of a religious service? The only answer that makes sense is that they were not ALLOWED a religious service. If that is the case, then it does not bode well for coronation.
  #1584  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:48 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
The plot thickens. I just read on another site that because of the Marriage Act 1836, Charles and Camilla may not be legally married.
scooter, that plot was thickened ages ago and this particular act was discussed quite a bit before in one of these threads as well as another act that followed it and made the outcome ambiguous.

I don't remember the details of the discussion but I'm sure that you can find out as much as you want about it by simply searching the forums.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1585  
Old 10-03-2007, 10:03 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkie40 View Post
Charles does face public ridicule due to his quirks and personal issues...talking to plants, Defender of Faiths, admitted adultery of Diana and, sadly, his big ears...and such ridicule and mirth was exactly what the Queen Mum did not have in mind when her favourite grandson would have to face when it was his turn to reign...but she was well aware of all of this and knew it was part of the "landscape" so to speak...

Yet what Prince Charles has, due to a lot of credit to Camilla's influence behind the scenes, are deep and powerful friendships, sponsors and support from some very good and very important people aorund the globe.

Prince Charles will face some twittering, some deep ridicule and unflattering comparisions but his reign will be surpirisingly strong.
What do you mean by saying "his reign will be surprisingly strong"? Is Prince Charles going to dissolve the Parliament and become an absolute ruler?
  #1586  
Old 10-03-2007, 10:05 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage.
Very many clergy are willing to allow a church service for divorced couples. Therefore they do recognise divorce and remarriage and have done so, in some parishes since the 80's.[quote]Who knows what the church, in it's efforts to retain it's power, will accept in 10 - 20 years time. Who would have thought 20 years ago that they would accept women or gay clergy?
Quote:
As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla. When they were getting engaged, there was a site where about 90% of the posters were saying if Charles and Camilla waned to get married, he should step down from the line of succession.
The UK population has become more accepting of Camilla and some of the sites and their polls were the ones that you could vote dozens of times. The Royalist is a pro Diana site, if they can write something derogatory about Camilla, they will. The majority of the population do not go onto sites like this in the first place and most of the polls could not represent the entire population if they are only asking, as they did recently, 1005 people.
I was involved in a poll a short time ago (first one ever) and it asked me if my opinion about Camilla had changed since the wedding. I answered no, as my opinion has not changed, I always thought she was perfect for the country and for Charles. Then look at the interpretation they probably used and it looks as if I don't like her.
  #1587  
Old 10-03-2007, 10:12 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine View Post
There had been quite some kings before who swore that oath without living according to the church's idea of morality.
As there are many 'christians' who also fail to live up to the moral code of the church, there are even more members of the church who fail to abide by the church's own message of forgiveness.
  #1588  
Old 10-03-2007, 10:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage. The fact that it does not recognise divorce and remarriage was the reason that Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a service of dedication in the church, rather than marrying in the church. If he is 'not in good standing' as it were, how can he swear to uphold the church? As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla. When they were getting engaged, there was a site where about 90% of the posters were saying if Charles and Camilla waned to get married, he should step down from the line of succession. I am personally not in one faction or another. I just think the remarriage has created a consititutional mess re: the coronation. Technically Charles is a widower in the eyes of the church, it's Camilla who is still regarded as a divorcee, unless APB dies before the coronation. Now, if APB dies, start the conspiracy theories!!
The Anglican Church does recognise civil divorce and there is an allowance for remarriage in the church. But it is left up to individual Anglican ministers as to whether or not they will marry someone who has been married before. The exact wording is something like 'keeping in mind the church's teaching on marriage' ( This information can all be found on the official Anglican Church information site)
Charles and Camilla were never refused a church wedding, they never asked for one. They went for the simpler option of a civil wedding and a church blessing which is the Anglican church's favoured approach to a remarriage. ( Stated on the website too, on remarriage in the church)

The Anglican church considers Charles as a divorcee, not a widower. Since the church recognises civil divorce, at Diana's death he was not married to her in the eyes of the church, his divorce was recognised and he was considered a single man. Being single meant that he didn't have a wife and therefore he isn't a widower.

In regards to support for Camilla, the Daily Mail I think, commissioned a Yougov poll. At the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement, 9% of those polled were happy to have Camilla become Queen. Two and a half years later ( just before Diana's memorial) the poll was taken again, support for Camilla becoming Queen has risen to 28%, it's tripled in just 2 and a half years. At this rate in a few years time the majority will support her becoming Queen. Taking into consideration too you will have younger people with little or no memory of Diana and are only aware of Camilla.

So a poll taken at the time of their engagement on a website ( which may or maynot be pro-Diana) doesn't reflect the view of people now.

There is no constitution mess, the church recognises divorce and allows remarriage, either in the church or a blessing of a civil marriage. The marriage act for royals has been changed which is why the constitutional lawyers threw out the objections to C & C's marriage before they were married. There were legal attempts to stop it and they were unsuccessful.
Charles will be king as soon as his mother dies, the coronation will follow as the church accepted his remarriage.
  #1589  
Old 10-03-2007, 02:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
I personally see no reason why Prince Charles should not become King and to be honest here the Duchess of Cornwall Queen. It is my understanding that it would take an Act of Parliament to prevent her from becoming Queen anyway? The Church of England has blessed the marriage, I cannot see any other obstacle.

Diana, Princess of Wales is part of history now, the truth is she was unfaithful in her marriage to Prince Charles just as he was unfaithful to her, according to numerous published reports and on record testimony of friends of both parties. Both deserved to get some happiness in their life. I have read numerous reports that Diana was intrigued with the thought of marrying the Prince of Wales, not necessarily Prince Charles. Diana was not prepared for the rigors of Royal life and duty as presented to a future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, in fact why should she have been. She was a child herself. Her "family" was pushing for the marriage and the "connection" to Buckingham Palace and the "perks" that would bring.

The Duchess of Cornwall will NOT be giving birth to a Royal Child, the line of succession is secure and cemented. We live in the 21st century not the 1700s.
  #1590  
Old 10-03-2007, 02:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I personally see no reason why Prince Charles should not become King and to be honest here the Duchess of Cornwall Queen. It is my understanding that it would take an Act of Parliament to prevent her from becoming Queen anyway? The Church of England has blessed the marriage, I cannot see any other obstacle.

Diana, Princess of Wales is part of history now, the truth is she was unfaithful in her marriage to Prince Charles just as he was unfaithful to her, according to numerous published reports and on record testimony of friends of both parties. Both deserved to get some happiness in their life. I have read numerous reports that Diana was intrigued with the thought of marrying the Prince of Wales, not necessarily Prince Charles. Diana was not prepared for the rigors of Royal life and duty as presented to a future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, in fact why should she have been. She was a child herself. Her "family" was pushing for the marriage and the "connection" to Buckingham Palace and the "perks" that would bring.

The Duchess of Cornwall will NOT be giving birth to a Royal Child, the line of succession is secure and cemented. We live in the 21st century not the 1700s.
At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty.
  #1591  
Old 10-03-2007, 02:42 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage.
It does now. The rules about divorce and remarriage have been considerably relaxed by the CofE in the last few years.

Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003) | Church of England

Quote:
As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla.
I think you might find that the people who were crazy about Diana won't have enough clout to get Charles kicked off the throne. They may be very voluble, but they're increasingly in the minority. Now people have seen that Camilla is actually a reasonable human being and not some species of monster, as well as reading all the books about Diana which showed that she wasn't all that easy a person to live with (and even her friends say how possessive and insecure she was), they seem to be warming to her, the best efforts of the Daily Mail notwithstanding.
  #1592  
Old 10-03-2007, 02:56 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty.
Yes she did and I believe she received the title "Diana, Princess of Wales" for life and 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling in a divorce settlement for doing so?
  #1593  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Yes she did and I believe she received the title "Diana, Princess of Wales" for life and 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling in a divorce settlement for doing so?
Diana did not receive the title of "Princess of Wales" for life. Like all divorcees of peers, she was permitted to retain her style until she remarried, but was no longer The Princess of Wales or HRH.

Because she was the mother of a future king, Diana did receive special considerations from The Queen, including remaining a member of the royal family and retaining her precedence and dignity as a princess.
  #1594  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:13 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Diana did not receive the title of "Princess of Wales" for life. Like all divorcees of peers, she was permitted to retain her style until she remarried, but was no longer The Princess of Wales or HRH.

Because she was the mother of a future king, Diana did receive special considerations from The Queen, including remaining a member of the royal family and retaining her precedence and dignity as a princess.
If Diana had remarried and as I understand you post would have lost the "style" Diana, Princess of Wales, she would have reverted to the status of a "Commoner?" How would that be possible as she would still be the mother of a future King?
  #1595  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Yes she did and I believe she received the title "Diana, Princess of Wales" for life and 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling in a divorce settlement for doing so?
Why not? 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling is an adequate payoff for securing the bloodline.
  #1596  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Why not? 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling is an adequate payoff for securing the bloodline.
You had previously posted;

"At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty."

My point was that she was adequately compensated for fulfilling that ONE duty successfully.
  #1597  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
You had previously posted;

"At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty."

My point was that she was adequately compensated for fulfilling that ONE duty successfully.
May be or may be not... It was for the parties involved to determine. I am sure that the divorce was a tactical and strategic mistake of Princess Diana. If she did not find happiness with Prince Charles, she should have concentrated on her sons and charities. Unfortunately, Princess Diana failed to separate a fairy tale from harsh realities.
  #1598  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:26 PM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N/A, Germany
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkie40 View Post
Charles does face public ridicule due to his quirks and personal issues...talking to plants, Defender of Faiths, admitted adultery of Diana and, sadly, his big ears...and such ridicule and mirth was exactly what the Queen Mum did not have in mind when her favourite grandson would have to face when it was his turn to reign...but she was well aware of all of this and knew it was part of the "landscape" so to speak...
Sorry, but i can see in your list of ´personal issues´ nothing ridicule and mirth.
´Talking to plants´ and ´his big ears´ , do you really think this has something to do with a successful or not successful reign of a future King Charles?
About Defender of Faiths you can dicuss, be for or against it, etc..., about the broken marriage you can talk, judge, be sad, etc..., but does it make someone ridicule? Does it make someone not suitable to be a good King?
__________________
´We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we don´t get this right, how will they ever forgive us?´
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
  #1599  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:57 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
If Diana had remarried and as I understand you post would have lost the "style" Diana, Princess of Wales, she would have reverted to the status of a "Commoner?" How would that be possible as she would still be the mother of a future King?
Being the mother of a future King doesn't mean you are entitled to enjoy the status and titles enjoyed as a consequence of marriage. Diana became a Royal Highness and Princess of the UK as a result of her marriage to Prince Charles, not because she gave birth to Princes William and Harry.

Whether The Queen (or a future King Charles) would have granted Diana a lifetime or hereditary peerage of her own upon remarriage is a question that can never be answered. But it is reasonable to assume some additional honours would have been granted to her since any subsequent children would have been half-siblings of a future king.
  #1600  
Old 10-03-2007, 07:25 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Being the mother of a future King doesn't mean you are entitled to enjoy the status and titles enjoyed as a consequence of marriage. Diana became a Royal Highness and Princess of the UK as a result of her marriage to Prince Charles, not because she gave birth to Princes William and Harry.

Whether The Queen (or a future King Charles) would have granted Diana a lifetime or hereditary peerage of her own upon remarriage is a question that can never be answered. But it is reasonable to assume some additional honours would have been granted to her since any subsequent children would have been half-siblings of a future king.
It's not neccessarily true that it can never be answered. Prince William was widely quoted as saying 'Mummy I'll give you back HRH when I am King', which is something (I think?) can be done posthumously. As regards to whether the Diana Claque will or wont successfully 'rise up' about Queen Camilla, and whether or not they are powerful enough, to quote Dominick Dunne 'the aristos hate her and the commoners love her'. Given the Republican sentiment and the 20 (probable) year wait for a passing of the sceptor, I am concerned that the man in the street might just prefer some one with less baggage (ie william) , rather than changing the constitution, etc. Or perhaps a President instead?Although as stated before, if APB dies before the coronation the problem goes away. Or for that matter, if Camilla dies before then, not that I am wishing the grim reaper on anyone. I still dont understand why Edward was not permitted to remain King if married to his divorcee while Charles was allowed to marry his divorcee and remain PoW. Isn't it the exact same situation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Charles and Camilla Marriage could not even be discussed when QEQM was alive. After all, the whole reason that she and her daughter were Queens was because Edward could not marry a divorcee (who in that instence was not responsible for the break up of the PoW/King's marriage).
*shuts laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*
__________________

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 05:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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