Camilla As Queen

[mikey4444]

I have had a disagreement with a neighbour, over whether Camilla could be Queen or not.

She says that, as a divorcee, she couldn't be Queen. I have told that is nonsense !

Leaving aside any personal views on Camilla, can anyone tell me what the situation is on divorce, and the throne, legally and constitutionally.

[mikey4444]

Baldric....another clear and unequivocal post !

[Peter Pedant]

// She says that, as a divorcee, she couldn't be Queen. I have told that is nonsense ! //

har har har ask Henry VIII

I asked a protestant divine ( you know fella with a dog collar and frilly lacey jobby over a black jacket) and he said - that was then and this is now !

oops - the high church - ( anglican - the one his mother is suprema of) doesnt recognise divorce

but in terms of titles - the King can call who he likes what he likes by letters patent
( Jowett's opinion on whether Duke of Windsor was HRH - David should have gone back to whatever he was before abdication in 1936 and that was a Prince of the Realm and HRH. Then Jowett said that since the new king had said nichty royal - he really had to sit with it)

I imagine it is the same with Camilla

Royal titles dont really screw me up Mikey

[gulliver1]

Mikey, 10.39 , no rain cheques allowed on answer bank.

[naomi24]

Gulliver, is a rain cheque anything to do with paying your water bill?

[jno]

they said at the time of the marriage that she would become HRH The Princess Consort when Charles became king. I've not heard that they've changed theri minds.

[DTCwordfan]

There is no reason that she can't become Queen Consort as the wedding was cleared by the Queen and the divorce was not contentious. Wallace Simpson's was - divorced once and pursuing her second divorce.

When Edward announced his intentions to marry American Wallis Simpson in 1936, a constitutional crisis arose. Not only did the governments of the United Kingdom oppose the marriage but so did the Dominions of the British Commonwealth.

There were multiple reasons at the time that the marriage was so opposed by all. Edward was the nominal head of the Church of England, during that time the church did not allow divorced people to remarry if their ex-spouse was still alive. If Edward married Wallis in a civil ceremony it would have conflicted with his ex officio role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That has now changed and, ultimately, the Queen gave them the rubber stamp of approval.

Wallis’ first divorce in the United States was based on “emotional incompatibility”, which the Church of England would not recognize. If anyone had challenged her first divorce in the English courts, it may not have been recognized under English law.

The Church and English law only saw adultery to be grounds for divorce, therefore, her second and ultimately third marriages would have been considered invalid and bigamous.

The rest, as they say, is history - my view is that Charles will not renege on the promise at the time.

The other interesting question is why the Queen has never made Philip Prince Consort?