Crosswords0 min ago
Charles and Camilla
30 Answers
Why didn't he just marry her all those years ago, they where carrying on when he married Diana, and from what I can gather, they knew each other years and years before that and where doing the same then. It would have saved a lot of heartache all round.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LiverpoolLou. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, Parliament ACt is there to help things go through the LOrds - Royal Assent is still required - but this hasn't been held back since the 18th Century - my point is thought that it is still in place!
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/l01.pdf
And Woofgang - The COE was only formed as Henry VIII wanted to be remarried - and the Pope wouldn't let him get a divorce and remary, so really I can't see thta there is an argument.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/l01.pdf
And Woofgang - The COE was only formed as Henry VIII wanted to be remarried - and the Pope wouldn't let him get a divorce and remary, so really I can't see thta there is an argument.
I have been thinking about the question of Royal Assent in a democracy. You may of course disagree with what I have to say but, for what it�s worth, here it is.
Firstly, quoting from : H. Barnett: Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3rd ed., Cavendish 2000, at p. 168: Under the United Kingdom�s constitutional monarchy, the Queen is part of the legislature: Parliament comprises the Crown, Lords and Commons. Also on p. 169 the book says that W. Bagehot (1826-1877) in his book The English Constitution (1867), 1993, London: Fontana, p. 111, says that the sovereign has �under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights � the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn�. Further on p. 169 H. Barnett goes on to say that we need to look beyond the superficial phrase �in the name of the Crown�. The actual power which is exercisable by the Crown is limited in two ways. First, by convention, the majority of powers are exercised by Her Majesty�s government or Her Majesty�s judges in her name. Secondly, the existence and scope of a purported prerogative power is subjected to the scrutiny of the courts. The Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74 stated that the King has no power save that allowed by law. My own conclusion, which may seem controversial, is simply that, if anything, the Queen is part of the democratic process. People often remark that Government and Parliament are elected, hence they are supposed to represent the will of the people, but I think it is important to be aware that governments and politicians come and go every few years. To be cont'd.
Firstly, quoting from : H. Barnett: Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3rd ed., Cavendish 2000, at p. 168: Under the United Kingdom�s constitutional monarchy, the Queen is part of the legislature: Parliament comprises the Crown, Lords and Commons. Also on p. 169 the book says that W. Bagehot (1826-1877) in his book The English Constitution (1867), 1993, London: Fontana, p. 111, says that the sovereign has �under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights � the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn�. Further on p. 169 H. Barnett goes on to say that we need to look beyond the superficial phrase �in the name of the Crown�. The actual power which is exercisable by the Crown is limited in two ways. First, by convention, the majority of powers are exercised by Her Majesty�s government or Her Majesty�s judges in her name. Secondly, the existence and scope of a purported prerogative power is subjected to the scrutiny of the courts. The Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74 stated that the King has no power save that allowed by law. My own conclusion, which may seem controversial, is simply that, if anything, the Queen is part of the democratic process. People often remark that Government and Parliament are elected, hence they are supposed to represent the will of the people, but I think it is important to be aware that governments and politicians come and go every few years. To be cont'd.
To some extent they govern in order to be re-elected. If a policy is going to have disastrous results over a few years, or even a generation, it is not going to be their problem. This was, in fact, one of the strongest arguments in favour of retaining the hereditary House of Lords. Whilst I did not agree with a hereditary House of Lords, I recognised at the time that the argument was not without merit. The Queen has many years� experience and does not need to attract votes. H. Barnett goes on to say at p. 175: In legal theory, the Queen has the right to refuse her assent to Bills, but by convention, assent is always given. The right to refuse assent has not been exercised since the reign of Queen Anne in 1704. I add, the power of a constitutional convention should not be underestimated. The convention about Royal Assent is very, very strong. On p. 176 H. Barnett seems to conclude that the Queen cannot refuse Royal Assent except in the extraordinary circumstance in which she were asked to assent a Bill which subverts the democratic basis of the Constitution, quoting Sir Ivor Jenning: Cabinet Government, 3rd ed., Cambridge 1959, at p. 403 and 407-12. If that is so, then in my view, Royal Assent is an additional bastion of democracy, not an attack on democracy. To be cont'd.
Final part. On p. 609 H. Barnett explains how Royal Assent takes place in practice. Whilst Royal Assent is a Royal Prerogative, the Queen is in fact not personally involved. The Lord Chancellor submits a list of Bills ready for the Assent. In the House of Lords, attended by the Commons with the Speaker, the Clerk of the Parliaments reads the title of the Bills for assent and pronounces the assent in Norman French (!). Once assent has been given, it is notified to each House of Parliament by the Speaker of the House. I believe this is provided by the Royal Assent Act 1967 but I have not read it.,
The last thing I�d like to say, to conclude, is that other countries, including members of the EU which happen to be republics, also have a system whereby Bills, having gone through both the lower and higher Chamber, have to be signed by the Head of State (in a republic, that would be the President). If this is correct, and I believe it is, then they are in the same boat as us!
The last thing I�d like to say, to conclude, is that other countries, including members of the EU which happen to be republics, also have a system whereby Bills, having gone through both the lower and higher Chamber, have to be signed by the Head of State (in a republic, that would be the President). If this is correct, and I believe it is, then they are in the same boat as us!
Hgrove, as the person who posted the question, and to be honest, i really didn't think it would get many answers, but thanks to everyone, I read everone's answers and educated myself aswell, but I must admit, I do stand by the question I asked. We know Diana had her faults, she had affairs too, but she did go into the marriage as a virgin bride and to be married to Charles for life. As she said "there are 3 people in this marriage", what was she supposed to do sit back watch and put up, as they say in Royal cirlcles. At the end of the day, Charles should never have married Diana, he should have stuck by his guns, even though Camilla would have us all beleive that she wasn't ready for Royalty, oh but she is now 35 years later (THE RELUCTANT BRIDE).
Hgrove - I bow to your knowledge -
however,
If the monarch is supreme head of our nation and can excise the Royal Assent then we do not live in a democracy but a Monarchy. Whether this can be done or not is down to speculation. If the Queen or successor was to withold consent, it would be interesting to say the least!
On the other hand, if the Monarch is not really in charge, and cannot withold Assent, then she is not doing any more than any other Head of State, this is possibly more scary as she is unelected. This essentially means that the Prime Minister is actually President of this country and has supreme power. - I suspect this may be true aswell as scary.
LiverpoolLou - yes, hindsite is a wonderful thing. Point is, he went off to play Navy, she got married. he could then never marry her without choosing to never be King. Yes, he showed he was mortal by marrying someone that the population loved. He said that he did not have an affair until after the marriage had broken down. Personally, I belive him, but am sure that a lot of poeple will not.
And apologies for hijacking your question!
however,
If the monarch is supreme head of our nation and can excise the Royal Assent then we do not live in a democracy but a Monarchy. Whether this can be done or not is down to speculation. If the Queen or successor was to withold consent, it would be interesting to say the least!
On the other hand, if the Monarch is not really in charge, and cannot withold Assent, then she is not doing any more than any other Head of State, this is possibly more scary as she is unelected. This essentially means that the Prime Minister is actually President of this country and has supreme power. - I suspect this may be true aswell as scary.
LiverpoolLou - yes, hindsite is a wonderful thing. Point is, he went off to play Navy, she got married. he could then never marry her without choosing to never be King. Yes, he showed he was mortal by marrying someone that the population loved. He said that he did not have an affair until after the marriage had broken down. Personally, I belive him, but am sure that a lot of poeple will not.
And apologies for hijacking your question!
I dont care who they are, Charles and Camilla are entitled to some happiness.
What has Diana got to do with this NOTHING !
She has died, life does go on.
All this "Diana would have turned in her grave" and "what would Diana have said" and "what about the boys..." is driving me up the wall.
People die, people remarry.
It happens in a lot of families.
If people had shut their mouths in the first place and the Royal Family had let him marry Camilla in the first place, none of this would have happened.
Lots of people were responsible for Diana's death. Diana - YES, she could have said "NO - I will not get in that car with a drunk driving". Dodi could have said "NO, I will not get into that car driven by a man who has been drinking". Mohammed A F - is so sure that he is right, that his staff have to risk the sack to protect his son (and " fiance" if he is to be believed) because his son is to stupid to realise that his security leaves a lot to be desired. Lets get off this "MI5 killed Diana rubbish".
Have a happy life Charles and Camilla - You have waited a long time.
What has Diana got to do with this NOTHING !
She has died, life does go on.
All this "Diana would have turned in her grave" and "what would Diana have said" and "what about the boys..." is driving me up the wall.
People die, people remarry.
It happens in a lot of families.
If people had shut their mouths in the first place and the Royal Family had let him marry Camilla in the first place, none of this would have happened.
Lots of people were responsible for Diana's death. Diana - YES, she could have said "NO - I will not get in that car with a drunk driving". Dodi could have said "NO, I will not get into that car driven by a man who has been drinking". Mohammed A F - is so sure that he is right, that his staff have to risk the sack to protect his son (and " fiance" if he is to be believed) because his son is to stupid to realise that his security leaves a lot to be desired. Lets get off this "MI5 killed Diana rubbish".
Have a happy life Charles and Camilla - You have waited a long time.
