Royal Gossip
April 19, 2019, 11:48:06 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Charles & Camilla's Marriage: is it legal?  (Read 20186 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2659



« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2011, 10:18:52 pm »

The Lord Chancellor used the 2000 Human Rights Act which makes it clear that everyone has the right to marry.
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2011, 10:21:14 pm »

I've always found using the human rights act very ironic in the situation.
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 #22 on: November 04, 2011, 11:10:48 pm »

 
       I too find it ironic.

           Pursuing that thought could lead to all manner of changes regarding the RF.
Logged

mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2011, 12:30:22 am »

But it is not just that law that means their marriage is legal.

The bottom line is....

They could have married in the Church as there is no law to say a divorced Royal cannot marry in a COE Church.
The COE was happy for them to marry in the COE church because their is no law against a divorced Royal or any divorced person can marry in a COE church. 
However HM felt more comfortable with them marrying in a Registry Office which has been legal for any Royal to do for a few hundred years now.
So they just had a blessing in the COE church which in the eyes of the COE means they are married in the eyes of the Church and God.

So that ticks them being married by law, by HM as she gave permission (unlike she did to William and Kate) in the eyes of the COE and in the eyes of God.

The only Royal who has a question mark over their marriage is William and Kate because William did not seek permission to marry her.
Logged

Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2011, 03:05:30 am »



    Ah but HM did not attend their Register Office Wedding did she ?

      Many feel that she was pressured into attending the blessing, since Charles had said Camilla was not negotiable.
Logged

meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2659



« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2011, 03:47:27 am »

The Queen could have refused permission for the marriage, she could have refused to host the reception, she could have refused to put up the really, really big flag on Windsor Castle but she did none of those things.

She showed her love and support for her eldest son - something I do think people forget is that the Queen is Charles' mother - she carried him inside her for nine months and that connection is something that people forget - the normal love a mother has for her first born.

Sure she didn't attend the registry but as Supreme Governor the Church of England she felt that she couldn't do so but the next two in line for that position did - Charles and William.
Logged
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2011, 04:54:09 am »



    Ah but HM did not attend their Register Office Wedding did she ?

      Many feel that she was pressured into attending the blessing, since Charles had said Camilla was not negotiable.

But she told Charles to marry Camilla. She is the one who wanted the wedding.

HM also gave permission for the marriage and signed to say the wedding was approved by her

It does not matter that she did not attend the wedding, she attended the blessing in the COE.

Logged

Yooper
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11112


Moderator


« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2011, 06:23:24 am »

^^^^Thanks for the hopeful thots of PW/WK 'marriage', Mousie!  It kinda made my nite.   hall-Spell-check

As for CC and Co., isn't it kinda late to give a rip about this?  Or are we caring about the inevitable coronation and Camilla's place?  Sorry.  Been busy learning about San Diego from Akasha!!!!!!!   Cool
Logged


\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\"  Thomas Jefferson
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2011, 07:27:26 am »

Camilla is considered married by the Country's law, by HM and by the COE.

She will be crowned Queen Consort even if the Palace calls her something else because some Diana fans cannot accept someone else will end up crowned alongside Charles.

They are legally married by every account as I have proven time and time again on this board.

No valid argument has been brought mainly because no law has been broken.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 07:30:55 am by mousiekins » Logged

Yooper
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11112


Moderator


« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2011, 07:49:22 am »

That's what I thought, Mousie.  Why are we dragging this dead horse around, or am I not getting it (again)?
Logged


\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\"  Thomas Jefferson
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2011, 08:27:34 am »

It was brought up on another thread and some seem to want to discuss it. So I am giving all the facts to prove it is seen as legal in every department it needs to be. All those who make the decision in whether this is legal agree it is.
Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2011, 12:56:35 pm »

I think it's an interesting conversation although it doesn't have any objective.

Until Charles dies we won't get to know the real truth about this.
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 #32 on: November 05, 2011, 10:02:05 pm »

Either Charles is legally married or every divorced man and woman in Britain who remarried in a COE church is illegally married.

If so I would like someone to tell me so that I can ring up several friends and family as well as the COE themselves so they know they are breaking the law.
Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2011, 10:03:45 pm »

But there has always been different rules for royalty, they could be married but she wouldn't have a royal status.
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 #34 on: November 05, 2011, 10:27:10 pm »

There is no law saying a divorced Royal cannot marry in a Register Office
No Law that says he cannot marry in a COE church
No Law that says he cannot remarry at all.
Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2011, 10:32:34 pm »

I think it depends on the interpretation of the article cited in one of the previous articles.

However I was arguing about your comment meaning that a royal person may not have the same rules as a commoner.  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
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2011, 12:19:46 am »



     Alexandrine you raise some interesting points.

       As to why we are discussing this, I believe this is a forum to discuss Royal Families.
Logged

meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2659



« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2011, 04:00:51 am »

But there has always been different rules for royalty, they could be married but she wouldn't have a royal status.


What you are suggesting is a morganatic marriage and it was made clear in 1936 that in Britain there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage.  Edward VIII suggested that a solution to the Wallis matter.

The rules that used to apply to royals all changed with the Human Rights Act as it superseded the other acts.  Shortly after that the CoE changed its stance on remarriage for divorcees.  A few years after that Charles and Camilla legally married.
Logged
mousiekins
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7773


Harryite #2


« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2011, 03:35:08 pm »

Precisely  thumbsup

meaning his marriage is legal whichever way you look at it  



            As to why we are discussing this, I believe this is a forum to discuss Royal Families.

True but the question by the other poster was why are we discussing this when there is no valid argument that this marriage is legal and the marriage is considered legal by the State,HM and the COE in other words the 3 people who make the decision as to whether the marriage is legal and whether Camilla will be crowned when Charles becomes King.

If the State, HM and COE consider this marriage is legal then the marriage is legal
If the State, HM and COE consider this marriage is legal she will be Queen Consort

So why is it still being discussed?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 03:40:26 pm by mousiekins » Logged

Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15304



« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2011, 04:26:17 pm »

Because even the authority says that something is correct it may not be.

I wonder if the human right act has so much power over the legislation about royalty, why is there any need of changing the succession law? Is it not discrimination of religion that they cannot marry Catholics without losing their place in the line of succession? Or discrimination of sex the male preference?
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 5 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!