The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1721  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
And as it is an Act of Parliament, it can be amended, as no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament from changing the law. I was using it as an example of Parliament changing its mind about succession, anyways. If Parliament wanted, it could amend the Act of Settlement with a new Act removing Charles from succession. That won't happen, however.

Parliament doesn't need a legal authorization to pass an Act. It's authorization is its complete and total supremacy over the law.

My point is that "can," "will," and "should" are all different things. Can Parliament remove Charles? Yes. Will they? Most likely not. Should they? No.



Edward VIII didn't have the power to stop being the monarch. Only Parliament had that power. Parliament could have said no had they been in a cruel mood.



I agree.



It wouldn't serve a purpose.
Well, when I look at the course of recent British history, I see the Prince of Wales BEING DIVORCED, I see the Prince of Wales and his long term companion LIVING TOGETHER and finally I see the Prince of Wales MARRYING his long term lover companion and she receiving a Title and place in the Royal Family, even though she had previously been married and of course was not a virgin.

I still see HRH Prince Charles ascending to the throne and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall being his Queen Consort.
__________________

  #1722  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:07 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I still see HRH Prince Charles ascending to the throne and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall being his Queen Consort.
As do I. I hope they drop that silly "Princess Consort" thing, too. (I think the very beginning of his reign would be the easiest time, because who would dare criticise a grieving monarch?)
__________________

  #1723  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:22 PM
TheTruth's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France
Posts: 2,651
I think the "Princess Consort" stuff is non-sense. If the whole situation had gone the other way round, Charles divorcing Camilla and marrying Diana (boy, that sounds weird lol) and if the people's love for her had been the same, there wouldn't have been such a question. So I do hope Camilla gets that "Queen Consort" title.
__________________

Please, help find a cure for ALS

Because it matters...
  #1724  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:50 PM
LOSSEAN's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NASINU, Fiji
Posts: 259
The Gods will decide. But we can say all we want.

Thank you to all those who have explained the law. It has been a revelation.
  #1725  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
I totally agree that Camilla should be Queen Consort, of course, she is married to the future King.

I am going to STRETCH the reach of this thread to include a brief discussion of Prince Philip, his role as father to Prince Charles and will justify it on the basis of the whole question of whether or not Charles could, would, should ascend the throne is predicated on his marriage to Camilla and Prince Philip certainly had a major impact on both of Prince Charles's marriages.

If that gentleman would have allowed his son to make his own decisions, regarding whom he was going to love, would have ever shown him any fatherly concern other than for public consumption, things might have been entirely different. The only time Prince Philip had a problem with the disaster known as the Waleses marriage was when he perceived it was having a negative effect on the Monarchy. I don't think he has ever cared about what was best for his son.

I will go a bit further and say I really don't accept and give a great deal of credence to a person who preaches family values, while himself married and openly cheating with a relatives wife and that is certainly documented about Prince Philip, I believe?

The truth is British Monarchs have been having sexual liasons outside the confines of their marriage vows for centuries.
  #1726  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:04 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I will go a bit further and say I really don't accept and give a great deal of credence to a person who preaches family values, while himself married and openly cheating with a relatives wife and that is certainly documented about Prince Philip, I believe?
I don't think it was ever documented.
  #1727  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:32 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I don't think it was ever documented.
I have three separate published sources in my possession that says that it is. I am basing my opinion on this.
  #1728  
Old 12-30-2007, 09:38 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I have three separate published sources in my possession that says that it is. I am basing my opinion on this.
I think it's one of those things like the thread about "who is Prince Harry's father?" We're just never going to know because the people involved have no desire to tell us.
  #1729  
Old 12-30-2007, 10:12 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
because who would dare criticise a grieving monarch?
You would probably be surprised. A grieving son, but a constitutional monarch nonetheless. And such delicate matters shall invariably arise, and with swift fortitude at that.

Unfortunately the matter can make them look rather stupid if nothing is decided upon sooner rather than later. To remain steadfast with such a suggestion all the way to the throne, only to drop it at the last minute...such indecisiveness has the capability to create some rather unwelcome backlash.

Whatever her title, I think Camilla shall fulfill a wonderful supporting role with much conviction and though I haven't met the woman, I'm inclined to think of her as a perfectly warm and kind hearted indavidual who it would seem has a splenid sense of humour.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #1730  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:36 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,685
Short of Charles being proven to have caused his mother's death, there is no legal barrier to his ascension. All the polls are just fillers for a slow news gap.
  #1731  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:47 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
This is VERY TRUE and Diana, Princess of Wales will still be a fond memory and regarded as "Queen of Peoples hearts." So all will be well.
  #1732  
Old 12-31-2007, 12:07 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incas View Post
Short of Charles being proven to have caused his mother's death, there is no legal barrier to his ascension. All the polls are just fillers for a slow news gap.
Even then he'd still become the King. They'd find a way to get rid of him quickly though, even if he refused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
This is VERY TRUE and Diana, Princess of Wales will still be a fond memory and regarded as "Queen of Peoples hearts." So all will be well.
I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...
  #1733  
Old 12-31-2007, 12:19 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: , Canada
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...

LOL!! I may join you in that regard.
  #1734  
Old 12-31-2007, 01:59 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Even then he'd still become the King. They'd find a way to get rid of him quickly though, even if he refused.



I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...
I think I will join the republic as well! wbenson, you make me laugh!

As I have stated many, many, many times, Charles will ascend the throne, Camilla will be by his side, and then WIlliam will ascend when the time arrives. It would be foolish and petty, not to mention unprecented to pass Charles over. Besides, the Queen made it quite clear that Charles will ascend upon her death. Personally, I think this whole passing Charles over thing is distasteful. Had Diana not given that perfectly awful interview where she stated that she didn't think Charles was fit to be king, well, we would never have this conversation. Why should the monarchy be based on the thoughts of a manipulative, bitter ex-wife? Makes no sense to me.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #1735  
Old 12-31-2007, 02:15 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
I think I will join the republic as well! wbenson, you make me laugh!

As I have stated many, many, many times, Charles will ascend the throne, Camilla will be by his side, and then WIlliam will ascend when the time arrives. It would be foolish and petty, not to mention unprecented to pass Charles over. Besides, the Queen made it quite clear that Charles will ascend upon her death. Personally, I think this whole passing Charles over thing is distasteful. Had Diana not given that perfectly awful interview where she stated that she didn't think Charles was fit to be king, well, we would never have this conversation. Why should the monarchy be based on the thoughts of a manipulative, bitter ex-wife? Makes no sense to me.
Precisely and there is something else that has ALWAYS puzzeled me to no end.

However Diana felt about Prince Charles, however angry she might have been and right or wrongly for that matter, HER SON, let me repeat that, HER SON was right in that mix and ANYTHING that negatively affected Prince Charles would have to have a NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HER SON, as the NEXT KING??

However angry you might be at your husband/ex-husband, doesn't the welfare and best interests OF YOUR CHILD come first?
  #1736  
Old 01-01-2008, 11:32 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post

However angry you might be at your husband/ex-husband, doesn't the welfare and best interests OF YOUR CHILD come first?
Well said, diamondBrg! This whole War of the Waleses was completely unfair to Princes William and Harry--but they seem to have handled it well. But, in all honesty, why would Diana want to push William into being King so young? Let me live a bit, enjoy his life, but she was so upset with Charles that she was willing to put William on the line very early. It didn't make much sense to me!
I will have to take a moment and say that the Duke and Duchess of York showed everyone how parents should strive to behave when there are children involved--
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #1737  
Old 01-02-2008, 04:51 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
But, in all honesty, why would Diana want to push William into being King so young? Let me live a bit, enjoy his life, but she was so upset with Charles that she was willing to put William on the line very early. It didn't make much sense to me!
Because then Charles would be humiliated, stripped of his august position while she would be "the mother of the king" aka "King's Mum", a very important person at her son's court. Does that make sense?
__________________
'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.
  #1738  
Old 01-02-2008, 09:58 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: carlisle, United Kingdom
Posts: 2
Hi all as I'm new here, If the Queen signs the final treaty with Europe in July 2008, Great Britain or England will effectively not exist any more. (England will be nine regions of the state of the UK in Europe). If this does go ahead our constitution will not exist and there will be no need for a Royal family at all, so maybe Charles and William will not reign. Mo.
  #1739  
Old 01-02-2008, 10:03 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Hmm. Not quite sure about that. The Lisbon Treaty has already been signed. It's not in effect yet but it's signed and sealed, done and dusted and the UK is still here. I think you've been reading a little too much of the Daily Mail.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
  #1740  
Old 01-02-2008, 10:41 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Unless Parliament ceases to be Supreme (it won't, as I'm pretty sure it can still do whatever it wants to nullify the treaty), then the treaty wouldn't be able to effect Charles' or William's future ability to reign at all. Unless EU tanks start rolling down Whitehall, I don't think there's really much to worry about.
__________________

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
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation customs daisy duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten nara period pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida taiwan thai royal family tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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