Personally, I find it hilarious that they've had so much trouble just getting the marriage details worked out. Just when it looks like everything is finally going to come off without a hitch the Pope goes and dies on them. LOL! :D-->
Once it's all over and done with and they are officially married, I think they've overcome enough together that they will be extremely happily married forever.
Personally, I find it hilarious that they've had so much trouble just getting the marriage details worked out. Just when it looks like everything is finally going to come off without a hitch the Pope goes and dies on them. LOL! :D-->
Once again, the Roman Catholic church is causing problems with royal marriage plans. Isn't that why the Church of England exists?
It would certainly look suspicious if Andrew Parker-Bowles suddenly departed this life! :P-->
I am sure that nobody has deliberately died just to throw a spanner in the works but people are falling off their perches with an amazing frequency.
The death of our former Prime Minister James Callaghan wasn't even mentioned on US TV news so I only heard about it when I got back home.
And now Prince Rainier...
The normal practice is to invite the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to a royal wedding and for them to say a prayer. I don't think that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor would have been attending this one as he could not possibly be seen to approve of it. In the circumstances he could not have attended now anyway as he will be in Rome for the Pope's funeral and the Conclave. It will be interesting to see how he will handle relations with Camilla once she is Charles' wife however.
Very interesting legal/royal system you have there. I was talking to somebody from England a few years back who explained your parliamentary politics to me, and how it differed from our political system.
It seems that your 'constitutional' system of government operates more on precedent and on existing laws, and changing them in a more gradual sense than ours is. (English common law seems to be based on this mindset.)
Ours seems (to me anyway) to be more according to an 'It is written' formula of Constitutional interpretation.
It seems that your 'constitutional' system of government operates more on precedent and on existing laws, and changing them in a more gradual sense than ours is. (English common law seems to be based on this mindset.)
Ours seems (to me anyway) to be more according to an 'It is written' formula of Constitutional interpretation.
Yes, but common law weighs heavily in our system also.
Yes Garth - precedent does have a large place to play in our system. Common law is a concept inherited from the British system, a set of practices going back to medaeval times.
But we have nothing that is so clearly in black and white as your Constitution, yet at least. A European Constitution has been drawn up and would have to be carried in a referendum here in the UK for it to be ratified. I wonder how many people which actually read it before they vote? :)-->
Even written documents require interpretation which is one of the reasons you have the Supreme Court (looks like a building site at present as did half of Washington).
But ours is harder to interpret given the need to know so many acts of parliaments, amendments, legal precedents etc. We have some very old laws that have never been repealed but are no longer enforced - such as the requirement to practice archery after church on Sundays!
I think that all these years of upheaval may have been avoided if Charles had been allowed to marry her long ago. They have been in love and committed to each other longer and HAPPY with each other longer than most couples. I think that Charles went along with all the rules and now, in his senior years he's decided it's time to follow his heart. This marriage is long overdue.
I gather that Charles had gone off to do his stint in the navy and Camilla thought he had gone off the boil so she accepted the proposal from Andrew Parker-Bowles. By the time Charles finished his duty the stable door was closed and he therefore had to look elsewhere for an heir producer.
Trouble was both he and she still felt a lot for each other which inevitably coloured their relationships with their spouses.
So she is no longer a Parker-Bowles she is now a Mountbatten-Windsor-Sonderberg-Glucksberg instead.
So she is no longer a Parker-Bowles she is now a Mountbatten-Windsor-Sonderberg-Glucksberg instead.
Technically, don't you have to throw in Schleswig-Holstein in between the Windsor and the Sonderburg, too?
In reality, I think she's just a "Windsor" since Charles is the heir apparent. Wasn't it the order that the children who weren't the direct heirs to be Mountbatten-Windsors and the heirs to be plain Windsors?
Not sure Zix will have to double check what Prince Phillip's family name is again.
The Queen did issue a proclamation that she wished her house to be known simply as the House of Windsor shortly after her accession in an attempt to clear up the "heraldic" problem.
This was seen at the time as a snub to Phillip and his uncle Earl Mountbatten. Phillip did voice his displeasure at his saying it made him "no better than a bloody amoeba" or words to that effect.
So offically they are the house of Windsor but technically they should also include Phillip's house name as well. In fact Princess Anne at her first wedding signed the register as Anne Mountbatten-Windsor. She is still in the line of succession but has dropped from second to being behind all her brothers and their children. If it went by seniority she would immediately follow William and Harry but be before Andrew and Edward and their children.
The heir apparent would normally take the house name of the father who does not have to be the monarch. A female monarch cannot pass on the house name to her heir - hence Elizabeth I was the last Tudor, and Anne was the last Stuart thus Victoria was the last Hanoverian.
At her death her son Edward VII took his father's house name instead. His father was Albert of the house of Saxe-Coburg (aka The Prince Consort). The name was changed to Windsor during WW1 because German names were not popular just as Battenburg was changed to Mountbatten at the same time.
Elizabeth II is by the same token the last Windsor and her children should take the father's name, or at the least it should be tagged on.
The Monarch may declare the name by which they wish their house to be known, however their heirs are not bound by that and technically they should abide by the established convention when the Monarch has been female.
So does this mean that if the queen dies and charles becomes king and Camilla becomes queen, Charles dies then Camilla be the manarch? Does that change everything? What about camilla's children? What about Charles, sons?
Vickles: No, because when George VI died in 1952, his wife did not become the monarch. She's known now as the Queen Mother. (Her name is also Elizabeth, but in order to avoid confusion with her daughter, she's rarely addressed as anything but "the Queen Mother" or "the Queen Mum".)
Vickles - the Queen Mother was a Queen Consort not a Queen regnant. No way could Camilla become the Monarch as Charles is first in line being the eldest son of the Queen.
Therefore the Monarch was her husband and their issue his daughter our present Queen.
And as the Queen Mother died 3 years ago she isn't addressed as anything these days... :(-->
An heir apparent is one for whom there is no doubt that they are the most likely to succeed to the throne and they are always male who have priority.
An heir presumptive is one who will only succeed if there is no male to supercede them and they are usually female.
The only exeption would be that some males can be presumptive also. For example a Monarch has at least two sons. The oldest son inherits the throne but at this time is either unmarried or there is no current issue of his marriage. The next oldest brother would then be heir presumptive.
If the new King were to have even a daughter she would then displace her uncle but would still be presumptive and not apparent in case a younger brother to her appears.
Queen Victoria's oldest child (also named Victoria) was female. Until her brother Albert Edward was born she was heir presumptive to the throne. Had the Queen died before she had her son then Princess Victoria would have become Queen. However with each succeeding son the Queen produced she was knocked further down the line of succession. She ended up marring Frederick of Germany and became the Empress Consort of that country and incidentally the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Our present Queen was a presumptive - ie if George VI and Queen Elizabeth had ever had a son she would have lost her place in the line of succession in his favour.
Henry VIII's children who survived were in order of birth Mary, Elizabeth, and Edward but Edward was given the crown before his sisters, who as circumstances turned out, each had their turn. Mary was heir presumptive only on the grounds that Edward had not had any children and Elizabeth took that position on Edward's death and Mary's accession.
If Anne had been born first she would have lost her place to Charles. This is the case in many royal houses although Sweden has changed ite legislation to allow the eldest child of the Monarch to succeed no matter what the sex is.
The is also the Salic Law in some monarchies which prevent a female from succeeding to the throne. Queen Victoria was thus unable to succeed to the throne of Hanover and that passed to her eldest surviving uncle the Duke of Cumberland.
I believe this was the case in Monaco until recently. As Prince Albert is childless, he may now be succeeded by his sisters or their descendants.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
4
12
5
Popular Days
Apr 13
7
Apr 6
7
Mar 22
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 13 2005
7 posts
Apr 6 2005
7 posts
Mar 22 2005
7 posts
Apr 5 2005
6 posts
Belle
Personally, I find it hilarious that they've had so much trouble just getting the marriage details worked out. Just when it looks like everything is finally going to come off without a hitch the Pope goes and dies on them. LOL!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Once it's all over and done with and they are officially married, I think they've overcome enough together that they will be extremely happily married forever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Once again, the Roman Catholic church is causing problems with royal marriage plans. Isn't that why the Church of England exists?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
It would certainly look suspicious if Andrew Parker-Bowles suddenly departed this life!
:P-->
I am sure that nobody has deliberately died just to throw a spanner in the works but people are falling off their perches with an amazing frequency.
The death of our former Prime Minister James Callaghan wasn't even mentioned on US TV news so I only heard about it when I got back home.
And now Prince Rainier...
The normal practice is to invite the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to a royal wedding and for them to say a prayer. I don't think that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor would have been attending this one as he could not possibly be seen to approve of it. In the circumstances he could not have attended now anyway as he will be in Rome for the Pope's funeral and the Conclave. It will be interesting to see how he will handle relations with Camilla once she is Charles' wife however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Trefor,
Very interesting legal/royal system you have there. I was talking to somebody from England a few years back who explained your parliamentary politics to me, and how it differed from our political system.
It seems that your 'constitutional' system of government operates more on precedent and on existing laws, and changing them in a more gradual sense than ours is. (English common law seems to be based on this mindset.)
Ours seems (to me anyway) to be more according to an 'It is written' formula of Constitutional interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Yes Garth - precedent does have a large place to play in our system. Common law is a concept inherited from the British system, a set of practices going back to medaeval times.
But we have nothing that is so clearly in black and white as your Constitution, yet at least. A European Constitution has been drawn up and would have to be carried in a referendum here in the UK for it to be ratified. I wonder how many people which actually read it before they vote?
:)-->
Even written documents require interpretation which is one of the reasons you have the Supreme Court (looks like a building site at present as did half of Washington).
But ours is harder to interpret given the need to know so many acts of parliaments, amendments, legal precedents etc. We have some very old laws that have never been repealed but are no longer enforced - such as the requirement to practice archery after church on Sundays!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
I think that all these years of upheaval may have been avoided if Charles had been allowed to marry her long ago. They have been in love and committed to each other longer and HAPPY with each other longer than most couples. I think that Charles went along with all the rules and now, in his senior years he's decided it's time to follow his heart. This marriage is long overdue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
I really couldn't care less about all this but why wasn't Charles "allowed" to marry Camilla way back when, and who said he couldn't? His mum?
Is it because there was some doubt about whether or not she was a virgin, apparently one of the criteria that Diana managed to pass?
I thought Charles just broke it off when he buggered off to play soldier boy which is why she married that Bowles guy.
For a guy who's never done an honest day's work in his life, Charles looks unbelievably old for his age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I gather that Charles had gone off to do his stint in the navy and Camilla thought he had gone off the boil so she accepted the proposal from Andrew Parker-Bowles. By the time Charles finished his duty the stable door was closed and he therefore had to look elsewhere for an heir producer.
Trouble was both he and she still felt a lot for each other which inevitably coloured their relationships with their spouses.
So she is no longer a Parker-Bowles she is now a Mountbatten-Windsor-Sonderberg-Glucksberg instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i still feel sad when i see that clip of princess di saying how crowded the marriage was with 3 ..... or however that went ....
i hope the boys are doing well....
i'm sad to see anyone's life end tragically and so young, especially being a mom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I saw some clips of the wedding and Camilla did appear to be accepted by the boys who kissed her when they saw her off for her honeymoon.
They, like Diana, are much better at showing their true emotions and they certainly seemed friendly and genuine enough to her in public.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Technically, don't you have to throw in Schleswig-Holstein in between the Windsor and the Sonderburg, too?
In reality, I think she's just a "Windsor" since Charles is the heir apparent. Wasn't it the order that the children who weren't the direct heirs to be Mountbatten-Windsors and the heirs to be plain Windsors?
Odd stuff, heraldry...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Not sure Zix will have to double check what Prince Phillip's family name is again.
The Queen did issue a proclamation that she wished her house to be known simply as the House of Windsor shortly after her accession in an attempt to clear up the "heraldic" problem.
This was seen at the time as a snub to Phillip and his uncle Earl Mountbatten. Phillip did voice his displeasure at his saying it made him "no better than a bloody amoeba" or words to that effect.
So offically they are the house of Windsor but technically they should also include Phillip's house name as well. In fact Princess Anne at her first wedding signed the register as Anne Mountbatten-Windsor. She is still in the line of succession but has dropped from second to being behind all her brothers and their children. If it went by seniority she would immediately follow William and Harry but be before Andrew and Edward and their children.
The heir apparent would normally take the house name of the father who does not have to be the monarch. A female monarch cannot pass on the house name to her heir - hence Elizabeth I was the last Tudor, and Anne was the last Stuart thus Victoria was the last Hanoverian.
At her death her son Edward VII took his father's house name instead. His father was Albert of the house of Saxe-Coburg (aka The Prince Consort). The name was changed to Windsor during WW1 because German names were not popular just as Battenburg was changed to Mountbatten at the same time.
Elizabeth II is by the same token the last Windsor and her children should take the father's name, or at the least it should be tagged on.
The Monarch may declare the name by which they wish their house to be known, however their heirs are not bound by that and technically they should abide by the established convention when the Monarch has been female.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
So does this mean that if the queen dies and charles becomes king and Camilla becomes queen, Charles dies then Camilla be the manarch? Does that change everything? What about camilla's children? What about Charles, sons?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Trefor: Interesting! Thanks.
Vickles: No, because when George VI died in 1952, his wife did not become the monarch. She's known now as the Queen Mother. (Her name is also Elizabeth, but in order to avoid confusion with her daughter, she's rarely addressed as anything but "the Queen Mother" or "the Queen Mum".)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Not any more she's not . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Vickles - the Queen Mother was a Queen Consort not a Queen regnant. No way could Camilla become the Monarch as Charles is first in line being the eldest son of the Queen.
Therefore the Monarch was her husband and their issue his daughter our present Queen.
And as the Queen Mother died 3 years ago she isn't addressed as anything these days...
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Yes Prince Phillip is a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glucksburg!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Thanks for the EDucation, Trefor.
I'd always thought the royal's last name was what Zixar said.
But, since you're from Wales...maybe you are right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Re: The current whereabouts of the Queen Mother.
D'oh!
Anyway, I'll bet Trefor knows the difference between an heir apparent and an heir presumptive...
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Yes I do Zix
:D-->
An heir apparent is one for whom there is no doubt that they are the most likely to succeed to the throne and they are always male who have priority.
An heir presumptive is one who will only succeed if there is no male to supercede them and they are usually female.
The only exeption would be that some males can be presumptive also. For example a Monarch has at least two sons. The oldest son inherits the throne but at this time is either unmarried or there is no current issue of his marriage. The next oldest brother would then be heir presumptive.
If the new King were to have even a daughter she would then displace her uncle but would still be presumptive and not apparent in case a younger brother to her appears.
Queen Victoria's oldest child (also named Victoria) was female. Until her brother Albert Edward was born she was heir presumptive to the throne. Had the Queen died before she had her son then Princess Victoria would have become Queen. However with each succeeding son the Queen produced she was knocked further down the line of succession. She ended up marring Frederick of Germany and became the Empress Consort of that country and incidentally the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Our present Queen was a presumptive - ie if George VI and Queen Elizabeth had ever had a son she would have lost her place in the line of succession in his favour.
Henry VIII's children who survived were in order of birth Mary, Elizabeth, and Edward but Edward was given the crown before his sisters, who as circumstances turned out, each had their turn. Mary was heir presumptive only on the grounds that Edward had not had any children and Elizabeth took that position on Edward's death and Mary's accession.
If Anne had been born first she would have lost her place to Charles. This is the case in many royal houses although Sweden has changed ite legislation to allow the eldest child of the Monarch to succeed no matter what the sex is.
The is also the Salic Law in some monarchies which prevent a female from succeeding to the throne. Queen Victoria was thus unable to succeed to the throne of Hanover and that passed to her eldest surviving uncle the Duke of Cumberland.
I believe this was the case in Monaco until recently. As Prince Albert is childless, he may now be succeeded by his sisters or their descendants.
Fascinating huh?
:P-->
Edited by cleftrefLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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.