Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles

[Silent Hunter]

Just this second broke on the BBC News website.

[Platypus]

If you're lying...


Well, now I can GAURANTEE Australia will be a republic by 2020.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, now I can GAURANTEE Australia will be a republic by 2020.

Hopefully Britain as well

[Silent Hunter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4252795.stm

[Platypus]

His last days as a Batchelor will be spent in Australia, according to the Packer Press...yay?

[Peter]

He'll never get to be King anyway: Parliament will simply invoke its rights under the Succession Act and skip over him in the succession - that sort of thing used to happen all the time before the War of the Roses.

[minionofmidas]

I always thought this would be illegal (or cost him the crown) unless Mr Parker-Bowles dies first?

[afleitch]

My congratulations go out to the both. Sadly the British gutter press will maul them for it....

[scorpiogurl]

He'll never get to be King anyway: Parliament will simply invoke its rights under the Succession Act and skip over him in the succession - that sort of thing used to happen all the time before the War of the Roses.

Interesting!!! Was there a Parliament before the War of the Roses? Also on what grounds would/could Parliament deny him the succession?

[Silent Hunter]

He'll never get to be King anyway: Parliament will simply invoke its rights under the Succession Act and skip over him in the succession - that sort of thing used to happen all the time before the War of the Roses.

Interesting!!! Was there a Parliament before the War of the Roses? Also on what grounds would/could Parliament deny him the succession?

Yes, there was a Parliament before the War of the Roses. It's been around since about 1215.

[scorpiogurl]

He'll never get to be King anyway: Parliament will simply invoke its rights under the Succession Act and skip over him in the succession - that sort of thing used to happen all the time before the War of the Roses.

OK, I take your point :-). It was mainly a collection of barons and knights though?

Interesting!!! Was there a Parliament before the War of the Roses? Also on what grounds would/could Parliament deny him the succession?

Yes, there was a Parliament before the War of the Roses. It's been around since about 1215.

[Peter]

The first time there was a collection of Commoners in the Parliament was in 1295. People were often passed over for the Throne in the line of succession because of disputes between Royals (esp. Father and Son) and also disputed successions that often ended in Civil War.

I always thought this would be illegal (or cost him the crown) unless Mr Parker-Bowles dies first?

It is. Parliament intends to repeal the Law; I've *heard* that some MPs want to saber rattle over this which could be interesting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I hope that the Hon. member for Bolsover is given plenty of debate time

[minionofmidas]

The first time there was a collection of Commoners in the Parliament was in 1295. People were often passed over for the Throne in the line of succession because of disputes between Royals (esp. Father and Son) and also disputed successions that often ended in Civil War.

IIRC there was no law governing the succession until the reign of Henry VIII.

[J. J.]

The first time there was a collection of Commoners in the Parliament was in 1295. People were often passed over for the Throne in the line of succession because of disputes between Royals (esp. Father and Son) and also disputed successions that often ended in Civil War.

IIRC there was no law governing the succession until the reign of Henry VIII.

Well, yes and no.  I believe that in order to make Henry VII in line for the throne, parliament had do declare an ancestor of his legitimate, ex post facto.  I think it was Owen Tudor, who was dead at the time.

[Democratic Hawk]

The first time there was a collection of Commoners in the Parliament was in 1295. People were often passed over for the Throne in the line of succession because of disputes between Royals (esp. Father and Son) and also disputed successions that often ended in Civil War.

IIRC there was no law governing the succession until the reign of Henry VIII.

Well, yes and no.  I believe that in order to make Henry VII in line for the throne, parliament had do declare an ancestor of his legitimate, ex post facto.  I think it was Owen Tudor, who was dead at the time.

Your right about the Tudor claim being tenuous

Henry VII was by birth a Tudor on his father's side. His claim to the English throne was through his mother Margaret Beaufort, who was a direct descendant from John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster), founder of said House); and his third wife Catherine Swynford. However, the Beauforts were illegitimate because John didn't marry Swynford until two years after the death of his second wife Constance of Castile in 1394. Henry's ancestor John Beaufort was born in 1371. Henry's claim was tenuous and by virtue of being the great-great-great grandson of Edward III

Henry married Elizabeth of York (eldest daughter of Edward IV and, therefore, the senior Yorkist claimant assuming that the 'Princes in the Tower' were dead), thus cementing his claim and that of his children to the English throne

Even then it's tricky since it is now widely held that Edward IV had married Elizabeth Woodville bigamously, which in effect would mean that Elizabeth of York herself was illegitimate. Furthermore, some believe that Edward IV was illegitmate (the product of his mother's extra-marital affair)

Of course all that would mean that the true claimants to the throne were the children of Edward's brother George, Duke of Clarence. In 1541, his daughter Margaret Countess of Salisbury (the last of the Plantagenets) was beheaded for treason by Henry VIII at the age of 68.

The Tudors were secure ........

Dave

P.S. Does any one know if kids who are born illegitimately and their parents later marry, does this legitimise them?

[Peter]

P.S. Does any one know if kids who are born illegitimately and their parents later marry, does this legitimise them?

I have some knowledge of this issue from some cursory knowledge of probate law that I have.

Under British Probate Law (until 1969), an illegitimate child of a man was not a child at all under the Law, whereas the illegitimate child of a woman was a child under the Law.

If the father and mother subsequently married, this still did not make the father the Legal father (at least as far as probate law is concerned, other aspects of the Law may have been different). The father would have to legally adopt the child for it to be considered legally his child.

Probate Law does now recognise illegitimate children in both cases, though I don't think it applies to claims to Royal (or other Noble) titles.

[minionofmidas]

P.S. Does any one know if kids who are born illegitimately and their parents later marry, does this legitimise them?

I have some knowledge of this issue from some cursory knowledge of probate law that I have.

Under British Probate Law (until 1969), an illegitimate child of a man was not a child at all under the Law, whereas the illegitimate child of a woman was a child under the Law.

If the father and mother subsequently married, this still did not make the father the Legal father (at least as far as probate law is concerned, other aspects of the Law may have been different). The father would have to legally adopt the child for it to be considered legally his child.

Probate Law does now recognise illegitimate children in both cases, though I don't think it applies to claims to Royal (or other Noble) titles.

That's odd. A premarital child is a legitimate child under German law. IIRC even a woman's premarital child of an (officially) unknown father is usually considered to be her next husband's child unless the couple declares that not to be the case.

[Democratic Hawk]

P.S. Does any one know if kids who are born illegitimately and their parents later marry, does this legitimise them?

I have some knowledge of this issue from some cursory knowledge of probate law that I have.

Under British Probate Law (until 1969), an illegitimate child of a man was not a child at all under the Law, whereas the illegitimate child of a woman was a child under the Law.

If the father and mother subsequently married, this still did not make the father the Legal father (at least as far as probate law is concerned, other aspects of the Law may have been different). The father would have to legally adopt the child for it to be considered legally his child.

Probate Law does now recognise illegitimate children in both cases, though I don't think it applies to claims to Royal (or other Noble) titles.

Basically, then, the marriage of John of Gaunt to Catherine Swynford did not legitmise their three children (the Beauforts), who were born by Catherine was he was his mistress; in which case, the Tudor legitimacy is very tenuous indeed

Dave

[Emsworth]

Basically, then, the marriage of John of Gaunt to Catherine Swynford did not legitmise their three children (the Beauforts), who were born by Catherine was he was his mistress; in which case, the Tudor legitimacy is very tenuous indeed

Indeed, that would be a valid analysis of the law. But the point was moot in any event, as Henry VII's claim to the throne was conquest. He could have also claimed the Crown Marital by right of his wife, Elizabeth of York.

[Democratic Hawk]

Basically, then, the marriage of John of Gaunt to Catherine Swynford did not legitmise their three children (the Beauforts), who were born by Catherine was he was his mistress; in which case, the Tudor legitimacy is very tenuous indeed

Indeed, that would be a valid analysis of the law. But the point was moot in any event, as Henry VII's claim to the throne was conquest. He could have also claimed the Crown Marital by right of his wife, Elizabeth of York.

The Tudor claim is undoutedly tenuous as far as them being descended from an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt is concerned but Elizabeth of York's claim, too, is tenuous; for two reasons:

1) It is now widely believed that Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville bigamously

2) There is some suggestion that Richard, Duke of York, was not the father of Edward IV (apparently, he was conceived when his 'father' was on campaign in Pontoise)

www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/FeaturesBritain/EnglandRichardIII.htm

Dave

[Emsworth]

That is quite correct. Even if their claim was tenuous, it was recognized by an Act of Parliament, which overruled everything else.

[Democratic Hawk]

That is quite correct. Even if their claim was tenuous, it was recognized by an Act of Parliament, which overruled everything else.

Very true. In fact, I like the Tudors, the two Henry's and Elizabeth anyway

Dave

[Emsworth]

Very true. In fact, I like the Tudors, the two Henry's and Elizabeth anyway

Yes, the convenience of Acts of Parliament...

Of course, Acts of Parliament were themselves ignored on several occasions; James I, for instance, should never have become King according to the law.

[J. J.]

[Probate Law does now recognise illegitimate children in both cases, though I don't think it applies to claims to Royal (or other Noble) titles.

It doesn't, there are several Lacelles (sp) that are not in the line succession to the thrown solely for that reason.