Author Topic: Kate & William  (Read 10281 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Winterlight

  • On the internet, no one can tell you're a dog- arf.
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9659
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2010, 08:59:27 AM »
A bit of a tangent, but some of the recent posts have brought up something that have me wondering.

Edward had to abdicate when he married Wallis Warfield Simpson because she was 1) not royalty, and 2) divorced.
Camilla is both of these things. So why could Charles still become king?  If he did, would she be Queen, or Princess, or what title?

I think it's partly because attitudes towards divorce have changed so radically since then. As someone else pointed out, Princess Margaret was not allowed to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend because he was divorced- although he was the "innocent party," it was still unacceptable.

Also, until 2002 the Church of England did not permit the remarriage of divorced people with living ex-spouses. Edward VIII would have been in conflict with the King's role as Supreme Governor of the Church, and the thought of the king marrying a woman with two living ex-husbands was a bit too much for people to stomach.
If wisdom’s ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care,
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak,
And how, and when, and where.
Caroline Lake Ingalls

DoubleTrouble

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1324
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2010, 10:11:20 PM »
*puts on scholar hat but with the disclaimer I'm not actually a scholar just a history nut*

Winterlight is correct about the Church of England and that Edward VIII, as Supreme Governor should have been seen to uphold the rules of the church and therefore really had no choice, it was Wallis or the crown. I don't think too many people in the government objected much to his abdication as it was known that Edward and Wallis supported Hitler which is why they were sent to the Bahamas during WWII to keep them away from Germany.

As for Camilla, what a lot of people don't realize (or want to admit b/c of the great love for Lady Diana) is that no matter what she is called after Prince Charles becomes king, Camilla will still technically be the queen as a woman married to the king does not have to be crowned in order to be called queen. A woman always takes the title associated with her husband; there are many examples in various monarchies around the world of this (i.e. Jane Seymour & Marie Antoinette), often if a king marries after becoming king, there's not always a crowning ceremony for his wife who is still referred to as the queen. The decision to not call Camilla "Princess of Wales" or "Queen Camilla" is purely a political one.

However, if a man married a queen then he is not known as "king" unless the queen decrees it. If the husband of a queen is named king consort, he does not have a right to succession and would, upon the death of his wife, have to succeed the title to his son (or daughter) and be styled in a manner similar to that of the Queen Mother. A queen could bestow on her husband the title of crown matrimonial which would mean that he was, in effect, her co-ruler and would keep the crown after her death until his death.

Most famous of someone being named king consort but not given the crown matrimonial would be Lord Henry who was married to Mary Queen of Scots. She made him king consort upon their marriage but didn't want to make him a co-ruler which ultimately lead to the breakdown of their marriage and his assassination because he wanted the crown.

Another good example is Ferdinand & Isabella; after Isabella predeceased Ferdinand, he lost the title of King of Castile to their eldest surviving daughter who was her mother's heir, not Ferdinand.

Why yes, I do read a lot of history ;)

KenveeB

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8358
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #47 on: November 18, 2010, 10:24:51 PM »
Yes, but a woman may be "the queen" without being a ruler in her own right or inheriting the crown upon her husband's death as well.  The wife of a king is traditionally the queen consort.  Only a "queen regnant" is actually able to reign in her own right.  It's just generally so historically presumed that a queen is the wife of a king rather than ruling on her own that the term "queen consort" (and "king regnant") is rarely used.

LeveeWoman

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4137
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #48 on: November 18, 2010, 10:36:55 PM »
I bet this reception's favors won't be colored condoms.

TeamBhakta

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #49 on: November 18, 2010, 10:46:03 PM »
I bet this reception's favors won't be colored condoms.

'Well, bad luck, Duch, your face is on the favor condoms so you're too late to chicken out."




Oh hey, a nice big handbasket to hell.....


LeveeWoman

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4137
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #50 on: November 18, 2010, 10:48:49 PM »
I bet this reception's favors won't be colored condoms.

'Well, bad luck, Duch, your face is on the favor condoms so you're too late to chicken out."



Oh hey, a nice big handbasket to hell.....



ROFLMAO!!

kareng57

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12230
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2010, 10:50:53 PM »
I have a question about the wedding.  It was my understanding when Charles married Camilla that they could not get married in Westminster Abbey because commoners could not get married there.  But isn't Kate a commoner?  All the buzz seems to indicate the Westminster will be the venue.

I'm not super keyed in to this type of news most of the time, but I thought that Charles and Camilla got married outside of the Church of England both because Camilla was a divorcee (whose spouse was still living), and because Charles and Camilla had carried on some sort of rel@tionship while they were married to other people.  They had to go and apologize for their adultery before any priest would bless their union, I think.

I'm hardly an expert, but as far as I'm aware there is nothing about British traditions or law that specifically forbid a commoner from marrying royalty in Westminster Abbey or from eventually becoming queen.  Things like divorce, however, can, since the monarch is supposed to be the head of the Church of England.  If I'm remembering my British history correctly, Queen Elizabeth's uncle abdicated the throne so he could marry a divorced American woman, making Elizabeth's father (the second son) king, and putting Elizabeth directly in the line of succession.

I was curious, and poking around on Wikipedia, and apparently there is a concept called "morganatic marriage" that exists, but not really in the UK.  The idea is that when people of unequal rank marry, the higher-ranked person's title is not granted to the spouse or to the children of that marriage (though they are otherwise legitimate).  It was most common when high-ranked men married lower-ranked women, since women rarely had hereditary titles they could hold in their own right.

But if Wikipedia is correct, there is actually no tradition of morganatic marriage in the UK.  Apparently, the fact that Camilla is not now styled as "Princess of Wales" is mostly in deference to public sentiments about Princess Diana, because it is legally a title she can claim.  Ditto her eventual title when Charles assumes the throne.  And in fact, when King Edward (Elizabeth's uncle) wanted to marry his divorcee, one option that was considered and then rejected was morganatic marriage (it was decided that he could not be king and marry her -- he'd have to pick one or the other).

It's an interesting few paragraphs, in any case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage#United_Kingdom


As your link states, the idea of a morganatic marriage between Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson was originally proposed and Edward enthusiastically embraced the idea.  But it was rejected by the government of the day, with the support of the Dominions.  Probably good riddance, really - along with his worrisome sympathy with the Facsist dictators of the day, he was just plain sloppy.  His staff repeatedly saw confidential state documents left around for just about anyone to see, along with drink-stains etc.

I'm not clear as to whether Charles and Camilla would have been able to legally marry in the Church of England, even if there had been no adultery.  I don't think that a divorced person - whose previous spouse is still living - can marry in the Anglican Church of Canada.  But perhaps confession of adultery made it possible for them to have a blessing ceremony.

They are so much more comfortable together than Charles and Diana ever were.  No disrespect to her (and I think it's lovely that Kate accepted Diana's ring) but they were truly a mismatch from Day One.  And no real fault to anyone.  Charles was expected to find a woman with "no past" - in contemporary times, it would have been difficult to find a candidate close to his own age.  And I think that there's a false perception that, when Charles was in his 20s, he and Camilla were "not allowed" to marry.  It was actually she who got tired of waiting for him to make up his mind (though to his credit, he was still pretty young) and married Parker-Bowles instead.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons was technically a commoner when she married the future George VI - her father was "only" an Earl (same as with Diana, actually).  And apparently George V counseled his son "you will be a lucky man if she will have you".  And what a successful union that was.

still in va

  • used to be gjcva1
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2010, 10:57:30 PM »
I have a question about the wedding.  It was my understanding when Charles married Camilla that they could not get married in Westminster Abbey because commoners could not get married there.  But isn't Kate a commoner?  All the buzz seems to indicate the Westminster will be the venue.

i don't think that Charles and Camilla ever intended to marry in Westminster Abby.  i thought they wanted to be married in the Windsor Castle Chapel, but since they were having a civil ceremony, if they had done so, that would mean that anyone else desiring could do so, so they had their civil marriage ceremony in the government offices in Windsor (which the Queen did not attend) and then a blessing and reception in Windsor Castle (which the Queen did attend). 

Dindrane

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 15328
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2010, 11:05:57 PM »
I don't really know about how marriages post-divorce work in any Anglican church.  In the Episcopalian one, if you were legally divorced, they're fine with it, I think.  But I think that the Episcopalian Church may have slightly more permissive ideas about any number of things than its Anglican counterparts.

Plus, the fact that Charles will one day be king and head of the Church of England would require that he be held to much more stringent standards than your average Anglican.

I was actually pretty happy when Charles and Camilla got married, to be honest.  I've never quite understood the vitriol that is sometimes expressed towards her or him.  I was too young to have any really direct memories of Princess Diana (she died when I was 13 or so, I think), so perhaps that has something to do with it.  It always seemed to me that Diana and Charles had a marriage that was destroyed as much by circumstances as it was by either of them, and that there was really no one person who could shoulder even a majority of the blame.  In a lot of ways, that makes things a lot more sad all around.


still in va

  • used to be gjcva1
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3517
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2010, 11:12:23 PM »
i hope that William and Kate have a long and happy life together.  they have already been "dating" nearly as long as Charles and Diana were married, and Kate is much more mature.  i can't imagine being dropped into something like a royal marriage with all it entails at 19.  i hope Kate has a better idea of what she is going to go through.  and i hope that William, having seen how unhappy his mother was, will be more sensitive to her than Charles was.  that's not a slam against Charles.  it was a different time when Charles and Diana married.  the Royal Family was much more insular when they married.  Diana had to fit into the existing structure.  and let's face it.  she wasn't the most stable personality around. 

DoubleTrouble

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1324
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2010, 11:22:14 PM »
I don't really know about how marriages post-divorce work in any Anglican church.  In the Episcopalian one, if you were legally divorced, they're fine with it, I think.  But I think that the Episcopalian Church may have slightly more permissive ideas about any number of things than its Anglican counterparts.

Plus, the fact that Charles will one day be king and head of the Church of England would require that he be held to much more stringent standards than your average Anglican.

I was actually pretty happy when Charles and Camilla got married, to be honest.  I've never quite understood the vitriol that is sometimes expressed towards her or him.  I was too young to have any really direct memories of Princess Diana (she died when I was 13 or so, I think), so perhaps that has something to do with it.  It always seemed to me that Diana and Charles had a marriage that was destroyed as much by circumstances as it was by either of them, and that there was really no one person who could shoulder even a majority of the blame.  In a lot of ways, that makes things a lot more sad all around.

A lot of it has to do with royalty usually having "ugly" * wives and taking "beautiful" mistresses. People just couldn't fathom why Charles, being married to a "beautiful" woman preferred his "ugly" mistress. No one outside the royal family really knew how completely unsuited Charles & Diana were for each other. To be honest, that marriage never should have happened but people were so concerned with the Prince of Wales marrying a virgin from an aristocratic family that it didn't matter what Charles, Diana, or Camilla wanted.

That's why I'm so happy for Prince William, he's taken his time and is marrying someone he really knows and loves.

There is an excellent book called "Sex With Kings" that covers this topic from way back when up until the present day (it was published just before Charles married Camilla but covers the whole thing until that point) and is fairly accurate.

* using quotes b/c everything is subjective :)

guihong

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6456
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #56 on: November 18, 2010, 11:35:13 PM »
And another book, Sex with the Queen, which explains the difference between queen regnant and one who was "merely" the wife of a king.  In the former, say Empress Catherine the Great of Russia (who was a nobody German princess sent to Russia to marry the imbecile heir to the throne),she had real power and loved whomever she darn well pleased.  In the latter, she was risking a convent or all the way to execution.  

Let's face it, in many royal families after generations of cousin marriages, the heirs became...not right.  Who could blame an unhappy spouse who wandered?

gui



DoubleTrouble

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1324
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #57 on: November 18, 2010, 11:53:10 PM »
And another book, Sex with the Queen, which explains the difference between queen regnant and one who was "merely" the wife of a king.  In the former, say Empress Catherine the Great of Russia (who was a nobody German princess sent to Russia to marry the imbecile heir to the throne),she had real power and loved whomever she darn well pleased.  In the latter, she was risking a convent or all the way to execution.  

Let's face it, in many royal families after generations of cousin marriages, the heirs became...not right.  Who could blame an unhappy spouse who wandered?

gui

Got that one too :) Really want her to write another book!

kareng57

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12230
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2010, 12:00:02 AM »
And another book, Sex with the Queen, which explains the difference between queen regnant and one who was "merely" the wife of a king.  In the former, say Empress Catherine the Great of Russia (who was a nobody German princess sent to Russia to marry the imbecile heir to the throne),she had real power and loved whomever she darn well pleased.  In the latter, she was risking a convent or all the way to execution.  

Let's face it, in many royal families after generations of cousin marriages, the heirs became...not right.  Who could blame an unhappy spouse who wandered?

gui

Sounds like a very interesting book, I just requested it from the library!  Thank you.

Paper Roses

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4785
Re: Kate & William
« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2010, 12:06:50 AM »
Ok, now I have a question, if you don't mind:

When Charles and Diana divorced, I recall there being a formal statement (I forget by whom) saying, "There is no reason why Diana cannot still become queen." 

How could that be?  I realize that if she and Charles had stayed married, and he eventually became king, she would be queen, but obviously not in the same way that Elizabeth is.  But how could she still be queen if she and Charles were divorced?  And would it only be possible if they did not remarry - to other people?   

I know it's a non-issue since Diana's gone, I just have always been curious about it.  It would be pretty strange, I would think, to have a King, Queen, and "king's wife." 
No, you can't, because you wishpishabonnyfish.