Why was it such a big deal for King Edward to marry a divorced woman that he had to abdicate the throne, but it's apparently to such a big deal for Prince Charles who is divorced himself (as is his wife)? I was under the impression that because he and Diana got divorced, he was ineligible for the crown, but that does not seem to be the case.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: that does not seem to be the case.
Why do you say that? There's every indication that the throne will go directly from his mother to his son, if he abdicates.
Also, it's not really a question of rules -- theoretically, Edward III could have chosen not to abdicate, although that would have been a VERY unpopular decision. Popular opinion has changed in the decades since, although it's unclear how much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
His wikipedia page says that he's the current heir to the throne. You can't be heir to the throne if you're ineligible to inherit it, neh?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
People were a lot more conservative about divorce when Edward left the throne than when Charles married Camilla. A lot of the opposition to Edward's wife also centered around her being not English, that he started pursuing her while she was still married, that sort of thing. Really, though, it was just what set off a long-filling powder keg of discontent with Edward, who was quite a bad monarch by the standards of the past several.
And it wasn't like there wasn't a huge furor about Charles, either.
Keep in mind that if Edward had pushed through, he almost certainly could have remained king. He wasn't ineligible in any legal sense, at least any likely sustainable legal sense. However, his government was going to resign if he remained king and proceeded with the marriage, and he was under quite a bit of pressure from numerous other quarters for numerous other reasons, so he abdicated.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm not sure if Charles' position might be more complicated if Diana wasn't dead.
Anyway, there's still a question over whether Camilla becomes queen. Charles has been hinting recently that he's going to try and get that for her. A bunch of stuff seems to have changed with these people. There used to be a huge issue with royalty marrying outside their status - and that too seems to have passed in recent years.
As for Charles' future religious role - the C. of E. was started by Henry VIII so that he could get rid of his first wife, so divorce is not going to be an issue there either. He wouldn't be the first divorced king, and Camilla wouldn't be the first divorced queen (I know that at least Eleanor of Aquitaine was divorced).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I am also under the impression that the "suitability" of the new bride plays a big part.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There are a lot of factors involved. I think the most important of these is that attitudes towards divorce and remarriage (both officially within the Church of England and amongst the general public) have changed rather significantly since 1936.
There are also technical details. Diana is dead and Camilla's original marriage has been annulled, so technically neither on of them is "divorced". I see the difference between a "divorce" and an "annulment" to be more of a legal "loop hole" than a substantive difference but I know Catholics do not. I don't believe a marriage can be annulled if there are children involved, so the only way Charles and Diana's marriage could have been annulled would be if Charles had maintained that William and Harry were not his sons.
I also think that if Charles does assume the thrown with Camilla at his side, it will almost certainly be the end of the British Monarchy. The Republican movement in Britain is already fairly strong and having a very unpopular pair assume the thrown could easily be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Most commentary I've read about the issue assumes William is the de facto heir, that Charles will not be king.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Only if he dies before his mother. Can you imagine someone waiting (possibly) seventy or even eighty years to finally get the job they've been trained for since birth (however unsuitable they might be for it)? I can't imagine Charles giving up his one shot at importance, and I can't imagine his kids putting pressure on him to do so.
He would be unpopular, though. He can't seem to keep his nose out of politics, for a start. But he'll probably be a little old man by then, so there might be sympathy support.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Can you imagine someone waiting (possibly) seventy or even eighty years to finally get the job they've been trained for since birth (however unsuitable they might be for it)? I can't imagine Charles giving up his one shot at importance, and I can't imagine his kids putting pressure on him to do so.
The job is primarily ceremony and symbolism. If the job had any real importance, I can't imagine the people of Britain allowing a totally unsuitable person to assume it solely because of their heritage.
I don't think it's Charles kids who are likely to put pressure on him to abdicate. His mother might if she thinks is critical to preserve the monarchy. Ministers, advisors and others interested in the viability of the Monarch very likely will pressure him to abdicate.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There are a lot of factors involved. I think the most important of these is that attitudes towards divorce and remarriage (both officially within the Church of England and amongst the general public) have changed rather significantly since 1936.
There are also technical details. Diana is dead and Camilla's original marriage has been annulled, so technically neither on of them is "divorced". I see the difference between a "divorce" and an "annulment" to be more of a legal "loop hole" than a substantive difference but I know Catholics do not. I don't believe a marriage can be annulled if there are children involved, so the only way Charles and Diana's marriage could have been annulled would be if Charles had maintained that William and Harry were not his sons.
I also think that if Charles does assume the thrown with Camilla at his side, it will almost certainly be the end of the British Monarchy. The Republican movement in Britain is already fairly strong and having a very unpopular pair assume the thrown could easily be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Camilla has two children.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Yes, it appears I was wrong about why Charles and Diana's marriage could not be annulled. Camilla's husband was Catholic and the Catholic Church will not allow remarriage of divorced persons but does annul marriages. The Church of England does not annul marriages but does allow remarriage of divorced persons under some conditions. Charles and Camilla were not allowed to remarry in the Church of England because it was determined that her relationship with Charles played a causal role in her divorce.
Back in the old days, when the Catholic church annulled a marriage it made any children "illegitimate". This appears no longer to be true. Back the day, if Charles and Diana's marriage had been annulled then William and Harry would no longer have been heirs to the throne.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Most commentary I've read about the issue assumes William is the de facto heir, that Charles will not be king.
While I hate to agree with jebus, this is precisely my understanding. Charles is technically the heir, but few royal-watchers expect him to ever take the throne.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Most commentary I've read about the issue assumes William is the de facto heir, that Charles will not be king.
While I hate to agree with jebus, this is precisely my understanding. Charles is technically the heir, but few royal-watchers expect him to ever take the throne.
Because the Elizabeth II is seemingly immortal, and will outlive Charles.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Possibly. Or more likely, Charles will step down in favor of his son.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also note that the woman that Edward III wanted to marry was a twice divorce American, who had been a prostitute in Asia before she snagged him.....not suitable at all to be the wife of the King.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also note that the woman that Edward III wanted to marry (and eventually did) was a twice divorced American, who had reputedly been a prostitute in Asia before she snagged him.....not suitable at all to be the wife of the King.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
You know, outside of 'royal-watchers' who don't have any say in anything, sadly, no-one is planning to oust Charles, not his mother, not anyone in parliament, not his sons, not even really the public (darn it - but that comes with the territory when you don't elect your head of state). Royalists are conservative by nature. They won't rock the boat.
It might happen if he got Alzheimers, or something. But outside of that, there's not a chance.
Charles is publicly talking about making his wife queen. But yes, since QE2 is probably going to live to be 108, he might not outlive her.
Kwea, something went funny with your posts. I'm pretty sure you mean Edward VII.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oops, I think he got that typo from me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You know, outside of 'royal-watchers' who don't have any say in anything, sadly, no-one is planning to oust Charles, not his mother, not anyone in parliament, not his sons, not even really the public (darn it - but that comes with the territory when you don't elect your head of state). Royalists are conservative by nature. They won't rock the boat.
It might happen if he got Alzheimers, or something. But outside of that, there's not a chance.
If Royalists are convinced (as some people are) that having Charles on the throne would tip the balance toward the Republicans and spell the end of the British Monarchy, I'm pretty sure they'd push hard for Charles to abdicate.
Only time will tell. I think much depends on the general mood of the populace toward Charles, Camilla and the Monarchy in general when Elizabeth finally dies.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Only time will tell. I think much depends on the general mood of the populace toward Charles, Camilla and the Monarch in general when Elizabeth finally dies.
All true. But none of that will stop people from speculating until then. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: All true. But none of that will stop people from speculating until then.
Nothing ever stops people from speculating, especially not facts.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Camilla has two children.
Yes, it appears I was wrong about why Charles and Diana's marriage could not be annulled. Camilla's husband was Catholic and the Catholic Church will not allow remarriage of divorced persons but does annul marriages. The Church of England does not annul marriages but does allow remarriage of divorced persons under some conditions. Charles and Camilla were not allowed to remarry in the Church of England because it was determined that her relationship with Charles played a causal role in her divorce.
Back in the old days, when the Catholic church annulled a marriage it made any children "illegitimate". This appears no longer to be true. Back the day, if Charles and Diana's marriage had been annulled then William and Harry would no longer have been heirs to the throne.
Henry VII divorced Mary Tudor's mother. I can't recall if Anne Boleyn was divorced before she was beheaded (Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived, thank you 10th grade).
Mary, then Elizabeth I very clearly took the throne after their younger brother died and the Jane Grey mess. Mary was deemed illegitimate at one point, if I recall correctly, but I don't think that really stopped her.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Nothing ever stops people from speculating, especially not facts.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Henry VIII didn't divorce Anne. Why bother with those extra legalities when he could simply have her beheaded for treason?
Another thing to consider is that Elizabeth II was a young girl when Edward abdicated and her father took the throne. Remember King's Speech? It was apparently very traumatic to him. I understand that because of that, she is quite averse to skipping Charles in favor of William.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If she's dead, she won't have much to say about it.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Henry VIII didn't divorce Anne.
He did, before having her head chopped off. He had Cranmer sort it out for him - because Henry couldn't have very easily executed her while she was still queen. Later, he had his marriage to Catherine Howard annulled for the same reason.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That was my wife posting as me....lol...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
When I think about it, I do have to feel sorry for Charles. Its definitely accurately a "fridge horror" moment (much as I hate the term it does apply).
His mother took the throne when he was three years old so he's never had even the remotest chance at any kind of normalcy. He's had a job, to which he is ill suited, imposed on him for life. He's never had the chance to freely choose anything of importance -- not his career, not his education, not his hobbies, not his wife. In a world where freedom, merit and achievement are lauded, what do you think it does to a child to be bowed to and called royal and told you are destined to be king regardless of merit of achievement? Add to that the the fact that you've got parents who've been screwed up by the same system and get raise mostly by nannies. It's a cruel system.
Unfortunately for Charles, that's a much more compelling reason to get rid of the monarchy all together than it is to make him King.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Amen, Rabbit.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Absolutely. Being born a royal, or even worse, heir, is one of the worst curses I could come up with.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Bah, #firstworldproblems Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:shrug: Most of my personal problems are first world problems. It's only appropriate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Bah, #firstworldproblems
On the grand scale of global injustice, this does in fact rank very low. It is however worth noting that this particular injustice would be rather easy to eliminate compared to say extreme poverty or violence.
It's also ironic that people continue to support monarchies in the first world largely because of romantic fairy tale fantasies about royalty that are so different for the reality of the situation.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Bah, #firstworldproblems
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)