Royal Gossip
April 20, 2019, 05:51:40 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Charles & Camilla's Marriage: is it legal?  (Read 20190 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« on: November 03, 2011, 07:29:01 pm »


     Had the future Supreme Governor of The Church of England's marriage to his former mistress been acceptable to the C o E ,  he would have been married there, not just had a quicky blessing.

       That speaks volumes IMO.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 02:14:09 pm by Alexandrine » Logged

Mooster
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3273


"William, stop worrying...the paps wouldn't dare!"


« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2011, 08:12:08 pm »

I don't know why they didn't lay a broom out and let them jump that, that's the only ceremony they deserved and were qualified to have IMO.
Logged

                                                                                                           Diana, Zac, Jemima, Ben and Sir James Goldsmith    

       
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2011, 08:23:02 pm »

^^  laugh
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2011, 08:41:29 pm »



     Had the future Supreme Governor of The Church of England's marriage to his former mistress been acceptable to the C o E ,  he would have been married there, not just had a quicky blessing.

       That speaks volumes IMO.

I don't want to keep saying this over and over because it seems you will ignore the facts because of your disdain for the couple.

But they are LEGALLY married in the eyes of the COUNTRY, QUEEN and COE.

It does not matter that you disapprove or wish it to be untrue they are married in eyes of the Church and nothing you think or say will ever change that OK.

If you want to argue any further then you may do so on another thread although I will not participate in it because you are ignoring the facts I have laid out over and over again

Just because you do not like something does not mean it is not true.
Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2011, 09:11:44 pm »

Are they married in the eyes of the church? A blessing is the same thing as a marriage service?  huh
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2011, 09:50:42 pm »

The Archbishop who took the service said the marriage is legal in the eyes of the church and C&C are married in the eyes of God.
HM signed and said the marriage is legal.
The State (Country) say it is legal too

They are legally married in all areas.
Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2011, 09:53:24 pm »

Thanks!

I don't disagree with your statement but I really think that the marriage shouldn't not be considered legal. I suppose we will have to wait until Charles dies and passes 30 years to read what was going in the gov&palace at the time.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2011, 10:21:04 pm »

Many couples marry, divorce and remarry including Christians.
Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2011, 10:22:29 pm »

Not Catholics! And not everyone is the next head of the Anglican church.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2011, 01:09:15 am »

I don't know why they didn't lay a broom out and let them jump that, that's the only ceremony they deserved and were qualified to have IMO.

    tehe  Well Said!
Logged

Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2011, 01:11:45 am »



     Had the future Supreme Governor of The Church of England's marriage to his former mistress been acceptable to the C o E ,  he would have been married there, not just had a quicky blessing.

       That speaks volumes IMO.

I don't want to keep saying this over and over because it seems you will ignore the facts because of your disdain for the couple.

But they are LEGALLY married in the eyes of the COUNTRY, QUEEN and COE.

It does not matter that you disapprove or wish it to be untrue they are married in eyes of the Church and nothing you think or say will ever change that OK.

If you want to argue any further then you may do so on another thread although I will not participate in it because you are ignoring the facts I have laid out over and over again

Just because you do not like something does not mean it is not true.

    May I ask why you are taking my posts as a personal attack?

    

       Greater legal minds than ourselves are still chewing on the legalities of this "marriage".

     
     Rats !   I didnt mean to double post.. my apologies.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 01:15:07 am by Tatiana » Logged

mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2011, 01:27:27 am »

I am not taking your posts as a personal attack.

I am just personally bored of the C&C threads where I state facts, you ignore them, carry on saying the exact same things and then ask me the same questions over and over again. I answer those questions again and you ignore them again and carry on to only ask me questions I have already answered on multiple times

As for this comment

Greater legal minds than ourselves are still chewing on the legalities of this "marriage".

In the eyes of the Church, HM and this country there is no question of the legality of their marriage.

It is only in the eyes of the people who dislike C&C such as yourselves where there is a question

It has already been proven to be a legal marriage and it is not the fault of the couple, HM, the country and the Church that there are still some who do not like C&C that are ignoring the facts and choosing not to believe.

There is no question in the minds of those who matter that this marriage in legal it is only those who are in no way involved and who do not decide that a marriage is legal who have a problem.
Logged

Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2011, 01:37:38 am »


   Madam,

           we are all entitled to our own opinions on this matter, scolding me or others is not appropriate.

             Are you speaking as an individual or as a moderator of this forum?

                 I did not realise that you were an authority on our Royal Family.

                        This couple are a contentious issue to many.. that is A Fact.
                 
                               



                 
Logged

mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2011, 01:46:16 am »

That is what you took from the post not what I said.

I am just stating the fact that this country, our Monarch and our church considers this marriage legal. That is a fact.

The only ones who consider this marriage illegal is people who have no knowledge and no part of the decision.

That is a fact and not an opinion.
Logged

Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2011, 01:53:25 am »

According to one opinion, voiced by Stephen Cretney QC, Emeritus Fellow in Legal History at Oxford University, the situation could become

"... that although there has been a ceremony and that has led to public rejoicing the Prince of Wales is not married and the... Mrs Parker Bowles is not his wife. And that would be a very, very serious matter."

One Act in particular, in the view of lawyers Panorama spoke to, could pose serious legal problems for the civil marriage planned for Charles and Camilla. In 1836 Parliament passed the Marriage Act which allowed people, for the first time, to have civil rather than church marriages. However, the Royal family was specifically exempted from the law and apparently barred from civil marriages.


  Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal family

The Marriage Act, 1949
In 1949 that Act was updated by a new Marriage Act. This is still the main Act regulating marriage in this country. It retained many features of the 1836 Act - including a Royal exemption. It states that
"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal family."

Prince Charles' spokesman at Clarence House told Panorama that advice had been taken from four legal experts. Their judgement was that the 1949 Act is not a continuation of the old legislation. It's a completely new act, and therefore does not carry over the bar on royals having civil marriages. But according to Stephen Cretney QC

"The 1949 Act is a Consolidation Act. A Consolidation Act does not change the law except in the most minor ways and all it does is to bring together the visions previously scattered amongst the large number of other acts."



Stephen Cretney QC, Emeritus Fellow in Legal History at Oxford University must have no knowledge either then...poor deluded fellow.
  

« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 01:55:19 am by Tatiana » Logged

mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2011, 02:07:15 am »

As mentioned before in answer to this question before

When the legality was questioned post marriage an investigation was launched, all laws were investigated to make sure it was fully legal. The findings were that it was legal and broke no laws including the ones mentioned in your post.

I said with no knowledge to not only include those with no legal training but also include those that were not privy to ALL documents pertaining to the investigation. That includes Stephen Cretney QC.

The investigation said it broke no laws.
Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2011, 02:17:15 pm »

I still don't see how the church can consider that they are married as if there was no problem why a blessing and not the full service?

Reading the articles it's obvious that it shouldn't be legal, I think the articles are clear enough; I suppose that they interpreted them in a very open way so the marriage could be considered legal.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2011, 05:41:42 pm »

      I agree Alexandrine, and one must remember that Charles is not only wealthy,  but has friends in high places, who are well aware that when he is King, they will benefit.
Logged

mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2011, 08:59:08 pm »

Unlike the 1836 Act, the 1949 Act does not say Royals cannot marry in a civil ceremony. In 1949, Parliament clearly intended that members of the Royal Family could, if they wished, get married in a civil ceremony.’
The fact that Section 45 of the 1836 Act was not repealed in 1949 was irrelevant. ‘People who dispute this interpretation may not have had time to think it through fully,’ We have been very thorough and are confident we have got it right.’ - findings of the legal investigation
Lord Falconer’s claim that Charles was protected by the Human Rights Act was also contentious.
He said the Act required legislation to be interpreted ‘wherever possible’ in a way that was compatible with the right to marry without discrimination.

As Head of the Church of England the Queen thought it best that Charles had a civil marriage but had it blessed in Church. To please those OUTSIDE of the COE who thought it was not right for a Divorced Heir to marry in a COE church. But the COE themselves had no problem with it.

The Church of England has become more liberal about divorce and now allows its priests to remarry divorced people. So for Charles to marry Camilla was no longer a problem Rowan Williams the Archbishop is a very liberal theologian and I'm sure he would have been perfectly happy to give them a full church wedding, but the Queen is more traditionalist about divorce and she wouldn't have been happy to be there. So they married in the civil register office at Windsor instead and the Archbishop gave them a service of blessing at St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle afterwards, which the Queen was happier about.

C of E has dropped its prohibition against the religious remarriage of the divorced, though individual clerics are still allowed to decide whether they are willing to conduct a marriage that involves someone who is divorced. That happened back in 2002

Also there has never has been a rule that states that a divorced monarch can not remarry.

For those that have mentioned Edward VIII there was a problem with Edward VIII's choice of bride because Wallis Warfield Simpson was a TWO-TIMES divorced woman who was seen as a social climber who would not stay with the King. If Parliament had liked her and she was only a one-time divorced woman,the marriage might have been allowed,but there were other issues with Edward that led to the abdication including been friendly with Hitler just before WW2

The real story behind this is that Edward was totally unfit to be king, was a womanising playboy with Nazi sympathies, was totally uninterested in the "boring stuff" like reading state papers, and so "everyone who mattered" wanted him off the throne. Wallis Simpson did us all a huge favour by providing the perfect excuse. Even King George V despaired of his son, saying "the boy will ruin himself within 12 months" - which of course is exactly what happened

In short no serious legal challenges to the validity of their marriage have been mounted. Charles remains the legal first in line to the throne, and when he succeeds his mother, his wife will become the Queen Consort, the correct and legal title for the wife of a king, even if she doesn't use that title and calls herself "Princess Consort".

Or if you don't believe me that divorcees can marry in COE just look at their website http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/youre-welcome/marriage-after-divorce.aspx

« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 09:01:54 pm by mousiekins » Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2011, 10:11:25 pm »

Mousie do you have any article where it is explained which legal arguments did  they use?  flower
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!