I thought if the future king marries a divorcee then he gives up his right to the throne?
How did Prince Charles marry Camilia and remain second to the throne?
Isn't that one of the "rules" of royalty?
2006-08-16 12:22:50 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ United Kingdom ➔ Other - United Kingdom
Charles is divorced but is still in line to become king.
He didn't give up his rights and when the Queen dies he becomes king.
2006-08-16 12:30:39 · update #1
I think for the same reason that the heirs of Henry VIII inherited the throne. You forget that Henry was also a divorcee. As for Edward VIII - you must understand that even for the Royals the rules change as society generally changes. What was unacceptable 80 years ago is acceptable now.
2006-08-16 12:55:20 · answer #1 · answered by john b 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He can because he is royalty, and can do what he chooses. Of couse, if the queen had said he cannot remain heir and marry camilla, then the story would be different, but the queen accepted it.
Honestly, most brits didnt seem to care one way or another that charles and camilla married, as the monarchy doesnt really do that much anyway. Furthermore, the queen seems likely to hang-on for a long time to come, so if charles does get a chance to be king, it will be for about a week at tops until he passes on too.
Re: the princess di thing, it seems the queen did not like diana for a long time.... read the gossip. Of couse, who are we random people to know what really goes on in royal circles, but, who cares?
Except if your reading this maaam. I beg your pardon your highness for any misspoken words. Forever you humble subject.
n
2006-08-16 19:14:09 · answer #2 · answered by nnjamerson 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The rules of royalty are changing with the times. It was a big deal to "allow" Prince Charles and Lady Di to divorce in the 1st place, so it naturally follows that the next step would be to allow him to re-marry. They realize that "stuff happens" more in this day and age, than when the current queen took the throne, what was it...60 yrs ago?
2016-03-27 04:57:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
After Diana's death, the church changed the rules,allowing Charles and "Crowmilla" to marry.Wasn't that convenient.
The Church of England teaches that marriage is for life. It also recognizes that some marriages sadly do fail and, if this should happen, it seeks to be available for all involved. The Church accepts that, in exceptional circumstances, a divorced person may marry again in church during the lifetime of a former spouse."
Under civil law, clergy have the capacity to marry any two people (as long as the couple can legally marry). The Church advises clergy to think carefully before remarrying couples and to ask them questions to find out how committed they are. The final decision rests with the clergy member.
2006-08-17 03:36:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, I thought so too. There was a king to the throne who gave up his reign in the 30's (I think) to marry a twice divorce American because he was so in love with her. He said he'd be damn, that the throne to England was nothing without his love. So, he gave it all up. I think it had to do more with her being an American then a Brit (or Welsh, like Princess Di was).
And, I think that the Queen never did like Di because she was stunningly beautiful and they found her to be more popular then the Queen herself. And I do not think she liked that, not at all. As for Camilla, she just thought that she is old, now, and if he did have an affair with her after all these years to destroy (mentally and emotionally) Di's feelings to be with her, he should at least marry the hag! That is what I think.
P.S. Everyone in the U.K. would rather see Prince William become king then his father (A because he looks like his mother and B he shares in the same humanitarian efforts as she once had.)
2006-08-16 12:36:55 · answer #5 · answered by uchaboo 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Good question ; the last person to try that had to give up the throne but then people behaved with more integrity in those days (1936) , now standards of behaviour are much lower.
He will also be the head of the Church of England and they do not officially allow divorced people to remarry so how do you explain that?
2006-08-16 17:56:49 · answer #6 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Edward III (who was the one who married Wallis Simpson and was the uncle of QEII) did not have to give up his claim for the throne but he abdicated (ie he did it by choice). Of course there was a lot of pressure for him to do so but my understanding is that there was nothing to stop him from ascending the throne and Wallis Simpson becoming Queen. Hence, I don't think there are any rules stopping Charles ascending but it would be a matter of moral and family pressure.
2006-08-17 02:15:19 · answer #7 · answered by mel 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmm...I'll admit I'm no expert on the subject (hell, I'm not even an armature!), but that sounds a bit odd to me. I mean, who can tell a monarch how to pick his/her successor? (OK, so it's mostly just a title these days...but they ARE royalty, right?) Didn't a certain King split from the Church and start his own just so he could divorce? (As opposed to just loping off her head as was the fad.)
2006-08-16 12:41:08 · answer #8 · answered by ordinaryenigma 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure, but I think I read that he gave that up when he married her. His sons are old enough to be king now, and his mother isn't showing any signs of being ready to give it up.
2006-08-16 12:28:50 · answer #9 · answered by mia2kl2002 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
royalty has a long history of doing what's necessary to do what they want, including starting their own religion.
2006-08-17 06:23:50 · answer #10 · answered by debbie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋