To think Prince George will never be King?

[SerfTerf]

Or if he is, the next generation won't be?

We were talking about it at lunch. I just have the strong feeling now that the monarchy will fizzle out at some point in the next 50-100 years.

It's not an active "want" just a notion.

Two of us talking earlier felt similarly but the other three were aghast.

So, AIBU?

[Offred]

Mary was catholic, she was removed from the line of succession by her brother Edward and, with support from the Catholics deposed lady Jane Grey and executed her.

That's how she became queen and she restored the catholic faith.

Things were quite different in the 16th century!

What I am arguing is that how Charles' marriage to Camilla was planned; the civil marriage without the Queen in attendance gives us some insight into the difficult constitutional issues attached to Charles being King and this leads me to believe that he may abdicate in order to allow the unencumbered William to succeed him.

[Lweji]

they are meant to be non political

I think you mean partisan.

[Lweji]

There's some confusion here.

For Catholics:
www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/children-of-an-annulled-marriage/

"Canon 1137 of The Code of Canon Law states that “The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.” Canon 1061 of the Code of Canon Law states that “An invalid marriage is called putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one of the parties, until both parties become certain of its nullity”. A putative marriage is a marriage in which at least one of the parties considered valid at the time of the marriage even though it was later declared invalid and annulled. Therefore an annulment has no bearing on the status of the legitimacy of the children within the Church."

Church annulments

US law:
www.losangelescriminallawyers.com/is-a-child-considered-to-be-illegitimate-if-the-marriage-is-annulled/

"Just as a divorce does not make children of a marriage illegitimate, neither will an annulment."

I can't find anything for the UK, and not for CoE, though.

[Riversleep]

Sorry that was to your message a few pages ago about a non political head of state.

[Riversleep]

If annulment would make William and Harry illegitimate and Henry VIII marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annuled, how come Mary I was Queen? I think that proves that they can and will do what they want, so as unhappy as some people ( not me) might be about Camilla and Charles' divorce, he will be King, and she will be his consort, whether Princess Consort or still Duchess of Cornwall or whatever title she wishes to use. TPTB would have been thinking about this since their marriage.

[Lweji]

I meant about what happens to the children of annulled marriages.

Riversleep

What?

[Riversleep]

Lweji As far as I understand, Ireland has a non political president. They are the Head of State and Guardian of the Constitution, but as far as I am aware, they are meant to be non political, even if they are initially from a political party. From my limited knowledge of it, they seem to basically have the same role as the Queen, but they are elected. I don't think it will happen here, but if we have a monarchy, then the rules of succession are the rules of succession. You can't pick and choose who you want. That was the point I was making.

[meditrina]

Lweji In England it's sections 11 and 12 (I think) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Marriages are considered valid unless proved otherwise. You can have an annulment if the marriage was void (one or both partner under age, too closely related, or married to someone else) - it never existed legally, but you may need the certificate to prove that.

Also if voidable - grounds are insufficient consent (mental capacity, not sober, coerced), non-consummation (inability or wilful refusal), the carrying of an STD by one party unbeknownst to the other, woman pregnant with a child other than the husband's without his knowledge.

For both you apply for a nullification to the courts, much as you would for divorce but the petition is for a decree if nullity.

[Lweji]

Can you link to the law on that? Civil and CoE.

[EdithWeston]

Yes, annulment means the situation is that grounds were found for the marriage to be declared void - it exists in both the law of the land and in church law (both CofE and RC, though the religious version and whose consent is needed can vary a bit).

To have it annulled under English law would indeed mean that the offspring were born outside wedlock (as legally the marriage never existed). Illegitimacy doesn't matter for most things nowadays, except the sometimes the heritability of titles. Including succession to the throne, from which the Princes William and Harry would be excluded.

The line of succession would then have been Charles (and offspring from any future legal marriage), Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, James, Louise, Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla, Zara, Mia

(The changes to priority for succession of female issue only applied to those born after its enactment)

[Lweji]

If Charles and Diana's marriage was annulled rather than a divorce then William and harry would be illegitimate children
I don't think that's true for Catholics, but have no idea about the CoE.

[Offred]

What Charles and camilla have is a civil legal marriage. What Charles and Diana had was a civil legal marriage and a marriage in the eyes of the Church of England under god.

I suppose that potentially what the queen was advised was that civil legal marriage was a compromise that would avert a repeat of the abdication crisis but that if there was a marriage in the eyes of the church that could then have an effect on the legitimacy of charles' first marriage and therefore the legitimacy (in the eyes of the church) of his sons.

For Charles to be 'defender of all faiths' there would need to be a separation of church and state. Most likely enacted by parliament, most likely if Charles attempted to leverage parliament into doing so there would be uproar and he would have to abdicate. A new abdication crisis.

There is no real easy way around this. There doesn't seem to be political will to separate church and state TBH.

I expect the queen is clinging on because she is worried about the potential instability when she goes.

[Offred]

a. The difference between annulment and divorce is crucial because annulment voids marriage, divorce ends it. At that time the church had sole control of marriage. The pope wouldn't annul Henry's marriage so he created the Church of England with the monarch at the head of it.

We don't have separation of church and state in this country. That means that there are constitutional issues thrown up by charles' divorce which are not really much to do with what the CofE's position is on marrying ordinary ppl who have had a divorce or leaving the church's view as the only consideration. That's why the queen took legal advice.

B. The Roman Catholic Church might consider Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon to be still valid, Mary to be legitimate etc. Catholics do not have status in the legislature so it is irrelevant. If Charles and Diana's marriage was annulled rather than a divorce then William and harry would be illegitimate children and succession would be problematic. In any case civil marriage has been introduced post Henry viii so that there is now both a religious element and a civil legal element.

Divorce is a civil legal thing. The approach of various religions to separation of spouses and remarriage is totally separate to civil divorce.

[Emillee]

Nothing to do with, say, the Riviera, WWI and II battlefields, wine regions, ski resorts, Cannes Film Festival, and any number of other things that identify France as France Britain doesn't have?

Oh... and of course, Disneyland Paris!

[Emillee]

As soon as you have elections, you introduce politics. People don't tend to vote for the most beautiful or nicest candidates, but on their politics

Yup.

[Emillee]

People flock in their droves to France, far more than cone to Britain.

Nothing to do with, say, the Riviera, WWI and II battlefields, wine regions, ski resorts, Cannes Film Festival, and any number of other things that identify France as France Britain doesn't have?

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Apologies - it seems it was in response to an NBC interviewer he said that, not after a child's question:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/20/prince-charles-camilla-queen

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Or there will be legislation passed that will say he is King and head of the Church of England

There doesn't need to be legislation for that - as things stand now, the monarch is the head of the CofE

Lweji's right that it will no doubt be addressed at the time, but it all seems a bit undignified somehow. I recall a visit where a youngster asked him if Camilla was going to be queen, and the stumbling reply: "well, umm, could be ... umm ... we'll have to see won't we"

Is that really the best we can do for a future head of state?

[Lweji]

We might as well have a non political Head of State, then we can choose from a wider pool of people.

What do you mean by non political?
The pool you have to choose from in most countries that have a President, even a non-executive one, is from political parties.
As soon as you have elections, you introduce politics. People don't tend to vote for the most beautiful or nicest candidates, but on their politics.

[Riversleep]

Or there will be legislation passed that will say he is King and head of the Church of England. It's not as if TPTB havent had long enough to discuss it. Or he will decide he doesnt want to be head of the Church of England, as he has said before, he wants to be Defender of all Faiths. The only way he wont be king is if the Queen outlives him. We don't get the chance to choose who is the monarch, otherwise what is the point of them? We might as well have a non political Head of State, then we can choose from a wider pool of people.

[Lweji]

That's a bridge they'll cross then.
When the Queen dies or abdicates, Camilla's ex might be dead, she might be dead, Charles might be dead or he could abdicate then (no point in saying so now).

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

The problem re Charles is that if the Church of England cannot marry him and camilla, the head of the Church (the monarch) cannot attend the civil ceremony, can Charles ever be head of the Church and what does this mean in relation to the likelihood he will ever be king?

I've always believed that, come the time, the Church's view on the matter will be quietly ignored. Not everyone fully understands the issues here and doubtless Charles's camp will encourage the idea that those who do are just republicans making a fuss about nothing

Probably, too, there'll be subtle pressure on the CofE to change their stance, or if that doesn't work, suggestions that the Coronation Oath could be changed to suit ... in fact hasn't there already been some talk about him being "defender of faith" rather than defender of the faith?

For someone who insists that traditional things are so important, Charles's expectations can seem hypocritical at best

[Genevieva]

I know all that, including that the annulment was not granted by the Pope and Protestant sympathisers in Henry's court used the situation to influence him into leaving the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England remains a compromise because Henry would never have entertained a Calvinist form of Protestantism, so it only really became Protestant when his son was a boy king and others pulled the string. Even today the Church of England describes itself as a 'holy catholic and apostolic church' - both Protestant and Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

In Henry's case I think the difference between the use of the word annulment and divorce is a matter of semantics. The reality remains that the Church of England's very existence was built on the desire to break up a monarch's marriage. Today the need for annulment doesn't really exist in most communities because it is not considered sinful for a marriage to break down, but I think there is a strong argument for saying both Diana and Charles were forced / pressurised into their marriage, so should have been given an annulment. Henry VIII was happily married for the best part of 20 years. It was only his desire for an heir that changed his mind. The argument about the validity of his marriage was rejected with good reason, so even if it was called an annulment, it was actually a divorce.

[ellestyle]

Margaret just proves a point then really, tourists would come here in their droves to visit places where royals used to be, just like in France. We can't ignore the fact that the royal palaces of France (that no longer house royals) draw in many more tourists than ours do.

[Offred]

Henry viii had his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled on the basis that she had previously been married to his brother and therefore the marriage was void. That is entirely different to divorce.

He created the Church of England with the monarch of England as head of the Church, at least in great part, because of his disagreement with the Pope about whether his marriage was void.

Despite the popular rhyme Henry viii was never divorced. He had two annulments - one because Catherine of Aragon had been married to his brother. She gave evidence in person (caused rather a stir) that the marriage to Henry's brother was never consummated (the basis for Henry's requested annulment) and the pope would not grant an annulment leading Henry to instigate the English reformation and create the Church of England.

The marriage to Anne of cleves was also annulled, this time due to the marriage itself not being consummated - embarrassing for Henry.

The problem re Charles is that if the Church of England cannot marry him and camilla, the head of the Church (the monarch) cannot attend the civil ceremony, can Charles ever be head of the Church and what does this mean in relation to the likelihood he will ever be king?