Firefly wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2017 6:18 pm
Rita
I think just maybe people are not aware that Charles (according to our laws) cannot become King if he is still married to Camilla. It was and still is illegal for an heir to the Throne to be married in a civil ceremony. His great uncle couldn't, as Mrs. Simpson was a divorcee, and they couldn't marry in a church. According to my research, that law has never been repealed and Tony Blair telling Charles that it was ok for him to marry in a civil ceremony, doesn't make it legal. Funny how things get brushed under the carpet.
Jackie
Hello Jackie
Bit late responding but I have been very poorly since Good Friday but back up and about a little now. Given me time to do some revision so here is my take for what it is worth.
Not sure which laws you are referring to here because I cannot think or find any but what I am aware of is that it was Royal Protocol which forbade Edward VIII from marrying Wallis Simpson and doubtless the Churches then stance on divorcees.
Constituionally there is no way that one can " renounce" their right in the line of succession - it is therefore a fact that when Her Majesty takes her last breath (which is hopefully a long way off yet) Prince Charles will become King of England just as Edward the VIII did on the death of his father. Once reigning, a Monarch can however abdicate from the throne "renouncing" their right to be King or Queen.
Under the new Act of Succession the first six in line to the throne have to have the Monarch's permission to marry no matter their age and Prince Charles requested and got such permission. In 2002 the Church of England (of which the Queen is head) has allowed divorced people to remarry in church in certain situations and the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed the marriage of Charles and Camilla. It should also be remembered that Dianna Princess of Wales was dead before he married Camilla. The present Act also decrees that Royals who divorced or marry divorcees do not lose their position in the line of succession and that provision is retrospective and reinstates people who previously renounced their place in the line of succession. It is still the law that a Roman Catholic cannot become Monarch.
I cannot believe the Queen as well as Prince Charles did not take cognisance of the constitutional position indeed I will go so far as to say I know very well that they did and sought expert advice from constitutional scholars, leaders of the Commonwealth countries, Parliament as well as the Church of England.
A suggestion was, I understand, made that Camilla should take the title of "Princess Consort" rather than "Queen Consort" but an Act of Parliament would be required to reduce her title as no such title exists.
It was not Tony Blair ( and I am not an advocate of his) per se who opined it would be o.k it was Parliament itself who so determined because it is Parliament who determines the succession not, as some believe, the Monarch.
Edward VIII's case was solely for him. As I said he became King the moment his father died but he made it clear his intention to marry Mrs Simpson. He had not got the support for this from his father and neither would he have had - rather both his parents disapproved of the relationship and refused to meet her. Following the death of George V Prime Minister Baldwin made it clear the Government, popular opinion in the country (all of it) and the Overseas Dominions (now Commonwealth) did not approve of his plans to marry Mrs Simpson a twice divorcee with one husband to whom she was still married. Had Edward married against the advice of his Ministers it would have caused the Government to resign triggering a constitutional crisis - he therefore chose to abdicate.
There is nothing in British Law that permits abdication and a specific law had to be passed to permit the abdication of Edward VIII which only applied to HIM. A new law will be required for any future abdication which hopefully will not occur.
Rita