Prince Charles to marry his slag

Lash wrote:

OK then. Why isn't Philip King?

Good question Lash. Here is the answer.

In the British monarchy, the husband of a female monarch does not have any recognized special status, rank, or privileges. In actual fact Prince Philip does play a major role in royal affairs, but this is not recognized in terms of his title.

Interestingly enough, the wife of a male monarch (e.g. the Queen Mother was the wife of King George VI) takes on her husband's rank and style upon marrying, becoming Queen.

0 Replies

OK (It pisses me off that I'm even asking these quesions), but didn't I hear that Charles couldn' even legally marry the second ime and become King---and then, they said he could mary Camilla, but she could never become Queen?

They didn't say that?

0 Replies

Damn the typos!

0 Replies

So a woman can obtain her Queenship through her husband the King, (or prince), and ascend to the Throne when he dies.

But a man cannot obtain his Kingship through his wife the Queen, and ascend to the Throne when she dies?

Whatsamatter, don't they have anti-discrimination laws in England?

0 Replies

Re: prince charles

kelticwizard wrote:

hamburger wrote:
(having sworn allegiance to her majesty when i obtained my CANADIAN citizenship, perhaps i should enquire so that i'll know how to address her when i next meet her).

Wow, those Canucks always struck me as being far too down-to-earth to put up with that crap.

What a disapppointment.

PS: Hamburger, I gather you became a Canadian in your adult life. What were you born?

We Canadians got our own Constitution in 1967. Before that we had the British North American Act. The Queen is more or less only a figurehead in Canada now.

Interestlngly, there is a current situation regarding the Monarch that some Canadians may not even be aware of. It seems that our new Canadian Ambassador at Washington, for the first time ever, presented his credentials to the U.S. President not in the name of The Queen, our head of state, but in that of the Governor General.

Our Prime Minister has revealed that The Queen had been stripped from the Canadian Letters of Credence and Recall, the formal documents by which nations exchange diplomatic representatives. Hereafter, these will be issued in the name of the Governor General alone.

This was done without any public consultation or Parliamentary discussion. This somewhat hides from other countries the fact that The Queen is our (Canadian) Head of State.

Our government seems to be trying to replace our constitutional monarchy through an end run. Many probably do not care one way or the other. I was born in Canada and my grandfather came here from England in 1905. As a schoolboy we sand God Save the Queen every morning and every classroom had a picture of the Queen.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

So a woman can obtain her Queenship through her husband the King, (or prince), and ascend to the Throne when he dies.

But a man cannot obtain his Kingship through his wife the Queen, and ascend to the Throne when she dies?

Whatsamatter, don't they have anti-discrimination laws in England?

Not exactly. The wife of the King does become the Queen. She actually decends frm the throne upon his death. The reason is that the succession is through the blood line of the male Monarch. That would be first sons and then daughters. Brother and then sisters in the abscence of offspring.

That is why King George VI's daugther, Elizabeth, became Queen upon his death. She became Queen Elizabeth II on February 6, 1952. Her mother became the Queen Mother at that point.

This should also answer your question regarding the fact that the husband of a Queen cannot become a King.

This is not a matter of discrimination. :-)

0 Replies

Actually, in all European monarchies it works (and worked) pretty the same: if the the title 'queen' is inherited by the oldest female, her husband becomes only a prince.

If it's the other way around, his wife becomes quen (see: Denmark, Sweden, Spain for instance).

(There a special term for that - but ....<grrr> I can't remember it.)

0 Replies

Hmm - I suspect that it comes from the old legal principle in patriarchies that the woman, upon marriage, was subsumed into her husband's legal identity - (as she had been previously subsumed into her father's).

Same as, for a long time, if a woman murdered her husband, it was held to be legally similar to regicide - since he was her ruler.

For instance, women in England did not have rights over their own property etc once married, until 1832 and the passing, in the UK, of the married women's property act.

We have conveniently forgotten, mostly, how deeply rooted in our legal systems, until relatively recently, was the non-personhood of women.

Anyone know just how recently rape in marriage laws were passed?

It is interesting that neither Elizabeth II nor Queen Victoria gave their husbands the status of king.

Oh - hey - re the people who hate monarchy squealing the most - I am a staunch anti-monarchist - but I do not get myself ariegated about the doings of the poor bastards curently trapped within that institution.

We're all poor, bare, forked animals. On an individual level, I wish them the same happiness I wish others passing this way...

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Anyone know just how recently rape in marriage laws were passed?

In the UK? (They have such a law since 1991)

0 Replies

And the US.

I believe it was the seventies, in Oz.

It is kind of a rhetorical question - trying to make the point about how the legal system has seen women.

When was it in Germany?

It was the late sixties in Oz before married women were allowed to remain in the public service - eg as teachers.

People forget how extreme it all was, by todays's standards - so things like women becoming queens automatically upon marrying a king, and men not automatically becoming king, seem odd.

Look at Elizabeth I, and what a dilemma marrying was for her.

Edit: 1991!!!!!!

My god!!!!!

0 Replies

In 1997 it was changed in Germany the latest = got a title referring to it and referring to both genders.

0 Replies

"As a schoolboy we sand God Save the Queen every morning and every classroom had a picture of the Queen."

Meanwhile in England we had a picture of Lenin and sang the Internationale. (I went to a very posh school)

"We're all poor, bare, forked animals. On an individual level, I wish them the same happiness I wish others passing this way..."

And so do I. Its not the individual its the institution that's absurd. But as the institution is royal persons, its difficult to differentiate.

The fact is that Charles has been busy doing nothing in particular all his life. He writes thousands of letters to Government expressing his views on everything under the sun, achieving absolutely zilch. I feel sorry for him.

He is also spoilt. He expects as Prince to be king. He demands to marry Camilla (fair enough except he wanted a church wedding when they were both complicit in their respective divorce(s)) and he wants to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England. And he wants to hunt foxes. And he most of all wants to be respected. Well Sir, respect these days is earned not bestowed on one by virtue of birth. As a shining example of that look at your mother, who actually takes her role as Queen very seriously.

Now by sheer co incidence, my New Statesman mug has arrived as I type. Now drinking cup of tea from mug inscribed

HRH Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Thingy-bob
A Nation Rejoices (surrounded by lion sort-of-rampant and love struck unicorn)

and best of all the wrong date 8th April 2005.

So congrats to the happy couple on 9th April 2005

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

.... the succession is through the blood line of the male Monarch. That would be first sons and then daughters. Brother and then sisters in the abscence of offspring.

This is not a matter of discrimination. :-)

Of course this discrimination. You just described a discriminatory system.

Imagine working for a company with a rule which said that when the boss isn't in that day, the authority goes to the male employee with the most seniority, then the male employee with the next most seniority, etc until there are no more males left. Only then will the authority go to the female with the most seniority, then the next most seniority, etc.

So a fellow who got hired three days ago would be in charge over a woman who had been working there 12 years, a woman who had been working there eight years, etc. Everybody from the newspapers to the various government departments would be hollering "Discrimination, discrimination" all over the place.

Yet, here we have the exact same system. The monarchy goes through the sons, regardless of age. ONLY if there are no sons left does it go to the daughters. So a 14 year old male on Haldol with pictures of the Columbine shooters on his bedroom walls gets the monarchy over his 26 year old sister who has a PhD from Cambridge.

And you don't call that discrimination?

0 Replies

Does anyone know whether Camilla's children
will have any royal status after the marriage
takes place?...I assume they will automatically
become step-siblings to the royal princes.

0 Replies

I presume you are talking about Camilla's children from her previous marriage?!!

I dont know for sure but I would be extremely surprised if they would inherit any title.

There was an article in a paper explaining how her elder son would take precedence over Prince William, but that turned out to be an april fool joke.

0 Replies

Before such could happen, they'll at have to be adopted. And then the Britísh constitution would have to be changed re adopted children of the sovereign.

0 Replies

Thanks Steve and Walter. I do mean Camilla's
existing children. Walter, nice to see you again,
are you sure Charles would have to adopt them? Would
they not automatically become his step-children?

As they are already over 18, I wonder whether they will be accorded any title. Then what about their future children?

It sure does get complicated!

0 Replies

Steve, good one on the April Fool's joke!!!!

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
.... the succession is through the blood line of the male Monarch. That would be first sons and then daughters. Brother and then sisters in the abscence of offspring.

This is not a matter of discrimination. :-)

Of course this discrimination. You just described a discriminatory system.

Imagine working for a company with a rule which said that when the boss isn't in that day, the authority goes to the male employee with the most seniority, then the male employee with the next most seniority, etc until there are no more males left. Only then will the authority go to the female with the most seniority, then the next most seniority, etc.

So a fellow who got hired three days ago would be in charge over a woman who had been working there 12 years, a woman who had been working there eight years, etc. Everybody from the newspapers to the various government departments would be hollering "Discrimination, discrimination" all over the place.

Yet, here we have the exact same system. The monarchy goes through the sons, regardless of age. ONLY if there are no sons left does it go to the daughters. So a 14 year old male on Haldol with pictures of the Columbine shooters on his bedroom walls gets the monarchy over his 26 year old sister who has a PhD from Cambridge.

And you don't call that discrimination?

Nope. Your metaphorical example has nothing to do with the royal lineage. I am not saying that this is either right or wrong. I am only saying hat is how it is.

If succession to the throne was based on intelligence, the course of history would be greatly changed. :-)

I just found the following information. I am sure you will be pleased with it.

The queen has given her approval for Parliament to consider a law that would give royal daughters the right to inherit the throne before their younger brothers. Under current law, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward rank ahead of their older sister, Princess Anne, in the line of sucession. If the law changes, Anne will be fourth in line to the throne. Prince Charles, as the queen's eldest child, will remain heir to the throne.

The current order of succession

Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Prince Andrew
Princess Beatrice
Princess Eugenie
Prince Edward
Lady Louise Windsor
Princess Anne
Peter Phillips
Zara Phillips

:-)

0 Replies

never heard that april fools joke but I reckon the uproar would have been hilarious.

Anybody else think Charles has had his cake and eaten it?

I heard the last time (pre Diana marriage)he had sex with Camilla was the night before his wedding!!
Diana gave him 2 sons.Then they get divorced.
He marries the woman of his dreams AND she will be called Princess of Wales(cant see people liking that)AND she will be queen.

My opinions on them have softened tho I love the original outburst.They clearly love each other to have waited so long.
Why did Camilla marry her husband if she loved Charles?

The wedding originally clashed with the Popes funeral.Radio reports over here are taking opinions from people on the street.Alot are saying they couldnt care less what day they get married on.
Wedding memorabilia is becoming sort after as the date will be wrong (says 8th not 9th)

0 Replies

Prince Charles to marry his slag

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know