The Royals must be kinda like some politicians--check to see what the polls say and then make an announcement about what they've decided to do, or call someone, or whatever! LOL!
Sounds like they need to get some new "hep" if they don't even know simple things like what the king's wife's title will be (oh, but they thought they'd just make up a NEW ONE--come on--a bit spoiled there, possibly???))
Wouldn't it be grand to have an ugly law...sorry ma'am, you are way too silly looking to reproduce...how small.
Public life with such public scrutiny must be a royal pain. I don't envy the royals a bit or anyone that is in the line of fire from the penispeanut gallery.
I think the queen is doing her darndest to outlive her son, so the succession would go to Prince William. And perhaps there has already been an agreement behind closed doors: "Charles, you can have your Camilla, but you can't have the throne. When the time comes, you will abdicate to Wills."
Personally, I think the tragedy was that he wasn't allowed to marry Camilla in the first place... his heart was with her all along, but had to find a virgin with the proper blood line to marry... what a mess. Poor Diana. Poor kids. Who cares if Camilla gets to be the queen? The parliment pretty much runs the country anyway.
Holy Crap can you imagine what Camilla's and Charles KIDS would have looked like? Ugh.
Diana saved the bloodline with her looks.
You know, I almost was going to name my rottie Camilla, cause Diana used to call Camilla "The Rottweiler" but Nico (my rottie) has such a pretty face, and I didn't want to name her after Diana's arch enemy.
I find it interesting that when a man ascends to King, his wife automatically becomes Queen, but when a woman ascends to the throne (like Elizabeth) her husband does not become King.
Of course, I don't think I can ever get that conversation out of my head where Charles told Camilla he would like to be her tampon. Ewwwwww.
I remember reading after that store clerks in England were referring to sanitary napkins as a box of Charlies.
Steve! No I never check my PT's. I wish I could get a little flag when I have a PT but I never do. I've got some computer sickness now, and I can't even get IN TO my damned PTs. I have a DLL error. Whatever the hell that is. I can't get IE I lose my windows, it takes me 3 restarts to load AOHell, so something is wrong here. I'm waiting for my computer guy, Homer, to call and help me out.
Anyway, My NEW email addy, is RottyGrrrl@aol.com I changed it after some psycho who thought I was after her old gray husband (NOT) was stalking me.
Nico just had leg surgery btw and I stole one of her painkillers cause I have cramps.
so if I seem a little rambling and incoherent, (like I need an excuse) that's why
The article has some other interesting links about a lesser title for Camilla and also the possibility of the marriage being postponed as it will now clash with the funeral of the Pope.
Charles would normally be the Queen's representative at what is after all a State Funeral and also Rowan Williams, due to perform the blessing, would also normally go, as would Tony Blair, although there is no actual requirement that they do so.
The UK media is reporting that the marriage will probably be postponed for 24 hours or more but no decision has yet been made.
The article is correct about the morganatic side - this was an argument made by Stanley Baldwin at the time of the Abdication that special legislation would have been required to make Wallis Simpson not the Queen and that it also implied an acceptance that she was not suitable to have been so. Such legislation would also have to have been passed in all countries of the then Empire but would still apply to all those countries where the Monarch is Head of State.
It's nothing to do with their humanity but their status.
The Monarch is the earthly head of the Anglican Church which still frowns on divorce even now (even though it was founded to give Henry VIII one).
Therefore the Monarch should not have a former spouse living nor their consort. Whereas Charles would now be considered to be widowed, Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive.
Hence the Church of England is not marrying the couple, merely giving them a blessing afterwards (as they would to other divorced persons).
The Civil Marriages Act which established registry office marriages specifically ruled out members of the Royal Family from marrying under such provisions. Previous divorced royals (such as Anne) have remarried in a Church of Scotland ceremony (this is the established church in Scotland).
It will place Charles and Camilla in the strange position of being possibly living in sin civilly but married in the religious sense.
Monarchists and legally minded people will care, it is understandable that those who live in a republic might not understand the full nuances.
All I can say is ugly marries ugly and thank God the 2 Princes came from Diana the beautiful and not born of the 2 horse faces. Maybe Queen Liz will out live Charlie, then Wills can have the throne. and quoting Forrest Gump would say.
Hope it helped - we don't actually have a written Constitution which can complicate things a little.
Great Britian doesn't have a written constitution? I thought that they had one, as I heard it or something 'being constitutional' being referenced to in various articles I read about British law.
Having been to your National Constitution Center in Philadelphia which is dedicated to your written Constitution (highly recommended if you are visiting Philly) I can understand how there can be confusion about how other Constitutions work.
The British Constitution is based upon traditional practices and existing laws of the land. It is not written as such and depends heavily upon interpretation on many points, usually by judges or legal experts or people who are considered to be experts upon what is and is not Constitutional.
For example the current "recieved wisdom" regarding the Monarch is that they have "the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn." Monarchs are expected to act on the "advice" of their ministers and not to go against them. For example when Tony Blair went to see the Queen yesterday to ask for a dissolution of Parliament and for a General Election, theoretically she could have refused but would have been thought to be acting in an unconstitutional manner if she had done so. On the other hand if Tony's five years had been up and he had used his Parliamentary majority to vote for the life of the Parliament to be extended without an election she would have been constitutional in refusing this as the Law limits the life of a Parliament to a maximum of five years. The only time when this actually happened was during WW2 because of the national emergency and all parties had agreed to this.
No laws passed by Parliament become legal until they recieve the Royal Assent. Theoretically the Queen could refuse it but no monarch since Queen Victoria actually has. There is no veto arrangement whereby the Monarch's refusal could be overturned.
No laws have actually been changed since the Abdication crisis regarding royal marriages and the status of royal spouses. The interpretation of what is and what is not permissable has changed however.
For a royal marriage the consent of the Monarch is required (Royal Marriages Act from the reign of George III). Nobody in line of succession to the throne may marry a Roman Catholic and remain in that line even today.
The change in public attitudes to divorce is much different to that existing in the 1930s and the UK is now a much more secular society but because the Monarch is also Head of the Church of England, he or she is expected to marry according to that church's dictates. No way was Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury going to marry Edward and Mrs Simpson, nor would he have crowned them. Rowan Williams is much more liberal, but he is still only able to give them a blessing which is the most the Church of England can officially offer where one or both partners have a previous spouse still living.
As the Civil Marriages Act specifically excluded royalty from its provisions the legality of a registry office wedding is open to question. This is where interpretation has come in and the government of the day has decided that this is no bar and are prepared to overlook it. Hence the Queen has acted on their advice and given her consent, a consent which is clearly equivocal given that she will not attend the civil ceremony in person, only the blessing.
Another word about status - rank is considered to be taken from the man. Hence a woman married to a King becomes a Queen Consort but a Queen regnant does not confer the rank of King consort on her husband. Where the husband is royal the children also become princes and princesses but where he is not they do not. The Monarch may confer a lesser rank upon them at her discretion.
Examples would be Peter and Zara Phillips who take their rank from their father Peter (Anne's first husband) and Lord Lindley and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (Princess Margaret's children) whose husband was created Early of Snowden when he married her.
Another interesting point - although we use the word citizen we are actually subjects. This goes back to the old days when Monarchs were held to rule by Divine Right.
It's no doubt all quaint and confusing to Americans! :D-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
4
12
5
Popular Days
Apr 6
7
Mar 22
7
Apr 13
7
Apr 5
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Steve! 7 posts
Zixar 4 posts
Trefor Heywood 12 posts
waterbuffalo 5 posts
Popular Days
Apr 6 2005
7 posts
Mar 22 2005
7 posts
Apr 13 2005
7 posts
Apr 5 2005
6 posts
ChasUFarley
Will she be as good of a queen as ExWayDarryl?
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
The Royals must be kinda like some politicians--check to see what the polls say and then make an announcement about what they've decided to do, or call someone, or whatever! LOL!
Sounds like they need to get some new "hep" if they don't even know simple things like what the king's wife's title will be (oh, but they thought they'd just make up a NEW ONE--come on--a bit spoiled there, possibly???))
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The details of Charles' & Camilla's private life is none of our business, even if he is leaving CES.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Pleeeeze say this isn't so!!!! With all JAL has going on do you think he is aware of it? Maybe he heard about it first on GSC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
This is one of the resons I stoped posting here.
Yall are so judgemental. It has been a disgrace for me to be part of this meeting tonight.
After all he got permision from moneyhands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MATILDA
Are you past breeding age, Steve?
Wouldn't it be grand to have an ugly law...sorry ma'am, you are way too silly looking to reproduce...how small.
Public life with such public scrutiny must be a royal pain. I don't envy the royals a bit or anyone that is in the line of fire from the penispeanut gallery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
I think the queen is doing her darndest to outlive her son, so the succession would go to Prince William. And perhaps there has already been an agreement behind closed doors: "Charles, you can have your Camilla, but you can't have the throne. When the time comes, you will abdicate to Wills."
Sorry, Charlie.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
Personally, I think the tragedy was that he wasn't allowed to marry Camilla in the first place... his heart was with her all along, but had to find a virgin with the proper blood line to marry... what a mess. Poor Diana. Poor kids. Who cares if Camilla gets to be the queen? The parliment pretty much runs the country anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
And the real answer is by TheHighWay!!!!:
Thx, TheHighWay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Holy Crap can you imagine what Camilla's and Charles KIDS would have looked like? Ugh.
Diana saved the bloodline with her looks.
You know, I almost was going to name my rottie Camilla, cause Diana used to call Camilla "The Rottweiler" but Nico (my rottie) has such a pretty face, and I didn't want to name her after Diana's arch enemy.
I find it interesting that when a man ascends to King, his wife automatically becomes Queen, but when a woman ascends to the throne (like Elizabeth) her husband does not become King.
Of course, I don't think I can ever get that conversation out of my head where Charles told Camilla he would like to be her tampon. Ewwwwww.
I remember reading after that store clerks in England were referring to sanitary napkins as a box of Charlies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Rottie, don't you ever check your PT's?
And please email me - I don't have a current email address for you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Steve! No I never check my PT's. I wish I could get a little flag when I have a PT but I never do. I've got some computer sickness now, and I can't even get IN TO my damned PTs. I have a DLL error. Whatever the hell that is. I can't get IE I lose my windows, it takes me 3 restarts to load AOHell, so something is wrong here. I'm waiting for my computer guy, Homer, to call and help me out.
Anyway, My NEW email addy, is RottyGrrrl@aol.com I changed it after some psycho who thought I was after her old gray husband (NOT) was stalking me.
Nico just had leg surgery btw and I stole one of her painkillers cause I have cramps.
so if I seem a little rambling and incoherent, (like I need an excuse) that's why
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
OH btw I find it very insulting you would refer to Camilla as having a "horse face."
As if that's an insult.
Shame on you Steve!
I find Mr. Ed very attractive.
Amber Frey did her makeover based on his profile you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The article has some other interesting links about a lesser title for Camilla and also the possibility of the marriage being postponed as it will now clash with the funeral of the Pope.
Charles would normally be the Queen's representative at what is after all a State Funeral and also Rowan Williams, due to perform the blessing, would also normally go, as would Tony Blair, although there is no actual requirement that they do so.
The UK media is reporting that the marriage will probably be postponed for 24 hours or more but no decision has yet been made.
The article is correct about the morganatic side - this was an argument made by Stanley Baldwin at the time of the Abdication that special legislation would have been required to make Wallis Simpson not the Queen and that it also implied an acceptance that she was not suitable to have been so. Such legislation would also have to have been passed in all countries of the then Empire but would still apply to all those countries where the Monarch is Head of State.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Well, let's see, Diana was flesh and blood HUMAN, and Camilla is flesh and blood HUMAN.
Why can't Camilla be queen? What's the difference and who cares?
Heywood, check your pt, please
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
It's nothing to do with their humanity but their status.
The Monarch is the earthly head of the Anglican Church which still frowns on divorce even now (even though it was founded to give Henry VIII one).
Therefore the Monarch should not have a former spouse living nor their consort. Whereas Charles would now be considered to be widowed, Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive.
Hence the Church of England is not marrying the couple, merely giving them a blessing afterwards (as they would to other divorced persons).
The Civil Marriages Act which established registry office marriages specifically ruled out members of the Royal Family from marrying under such provisions. Previous divorced royals (such as Anne) have remarried in a Church of Scotland ceremony (this is the established church in Scotland).
It will place Charles and Camilla in the strange position of being possibly living in sin civilly but married in the religious sense.
Monarchists and legally minded people will care, it is understandable that those who live in a republic might not understand the full nuances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Thanks for clearing that up, Trefor, although it's still a bit confusing to me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Hope it helped - we don't actually have a written Constitution which can complicate things a little.
What is this "Heywood check your pt" bit?
-->
And yes the wedding has been postponed until Saturday now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
That means please check your private topics.
Click on "Go", "My space", "Private messaging"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
All I can say is ugly marries ugly and thank God the 2 Princes came from Diana the beautiful and not born of the 2 horse faces. Maybe Queen Liz will out live Charlie, then Wills can have the throne. and quoting Forrest Gump would say.
"UGLY IS AS UGLY DOES"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
daaaaaaaang
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Great Britian doesn't have a written constitution? I thought that they had one, as I heard it or something 'being constitutional' being referenced to in various articles I read about British law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
WELL, OK WHATEVER YOU SAY!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Having been to your National Constitution Center in Philadelphia which is dedicated to your written Constitution (highly recommended if you are visiting Philly) I can understand how there can be confusion about how other Constitutions work.
The British Constitution is based upon traditional practices and existing laws of the land. It is not written as such and depends heavily upon interpretation on many points, usually by judges or legal experts or people who are considered to be experts upon what is and is not Constitutional.
For example the current "recieved wisdom" regarding the Monarch is that they have "the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn." Monarchs are expected to act on the "advice" of their ministers and not to go against them. For example when Tony Blair went to see the Queen yesterday to ask for a dissolution of Parliament and for a General Election, theoretically she could have refused but would have been thought to be acting in an unconstitutional manner if she had done so. On the other hand if Tony's five years had been up and he had used his Parliamentary majority to vote for the life of the Parliament to be extended without an election she would have been constitutional in refusing this as the Law limits the life of a Parliament to a maximum of five years. The only time when this actually happened was during WW2 because of the national emergency and all parties had agreed to this.
No laws passed by Parliament become legal until they recieve the Royal Assent. Theoretically the Queen could refuse it but no monarch since Queen Victoria actually has. There is no veto arrangement whereby the Monarch's refusal could be overturned.
No laws have actually been changed since the Abdication crisis regarding royal marriages and the status of royal spouses. The interpretation of what is and what is not permissable has changed however.
For a royal marriage the consent of the Monarch is required (Royal Marriages Act from the reign of George III). Nobody in line of succession to the throne may marry a Roman Catholic and remain in that line even today.
The change in public attitudes to divorce is much different to that existing in the 1930s and the UK is now a much more secular society but because the Monarch is also Head of the Church of England, he or she is expected to marry according to that church's dictates. No way was Cosmo Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury going to marry Edward and Mrs Simpson, nor would he have crowned them. Rowan Williams is much more liberal, but he is still only able to give them a blessing which is the most the Church of England can officially offer where one or both partners have a previous spouse still living.
As the Civil Marriages Act specifically excluded royalty from its provisions the legality of a registry office wedding is open to question. This is where interpretation has come in and the government of the day has decided that this is no bar and are prepared to overlook it. Hence the Queen has acted on their advice and given her consent, a consent which is clearly equivocal given that she will not attend the civil ceremony in person, only the blessing.
Another word about status - rank is considered to be taken from the man. Hence a woman married to a King becomes a Queen Consort but a Queen regnant does not confer the rank of King consort on her husband. Where the husband is royal the children also become princes and princesses but where he is not they do not. The Monarch may confer a lesser rank upon them at her discretion.
Examples would be Peter and Zara Phillips who take their rank from their father Peter (Anne's first husband) and Lord Lindley and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (Princess Margaret's children) whose husband was created Early of Snowden when he married her.
Another interesting point - although we use the word citizen we are actually subjects. This goes back to the old days when Monarchs were held to rule by Divine Right.
It's no doubt all quaint and confusing to Americans!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.