Royally Screwed: British Monarchy Revealed by Jacalynne Flax, Debbie Finger, Alexandra Odell Page A
Ads: Link
if you buy into the great love story (which I’m afraid we don’t) and you don’t care about the moral values of our future King and Queen, then what about investigating a little further into the legality, or lack of it, of this liaison?
In 1772, King George 111, created a Royal Marriage Act, which made a law that only the Royal Sovereign could give permission for a Royal marriage, this was to protect the line of succession and to keep riff raff and the undesirables from getting near the throne. No comment.
In 1836, the civil marriage act was introduced into British law, allowing couples the right to a civil ceremony, but explicitly excluding Royalty from benefiting from the same rights in section 45 of the act, it stated that if you were Royal, you could only be married in consecrated ground, by a minister of the Anglican church.
In 1949, the act was amended but section 45 was left intact, so let’s make it plain here, the act of 1949, neither replaced or annulled the exemption pertaining to Royalty.
In 1955, Princess Margaret, the younger sister of the current Queen, wanted to marry a Captain Townsend, divorcee. The Queen refused to give her permission, because Captain Townsend was divorced, but the Princess was told if she wanted a civil ceremony she had to give up her HRH, her line of succession and her access to the Privy Purse (her allowance).
The government of the time, was ready to give the Princess what she wanted, the right to marry in a registry office and the right to keep her HRH, her line of succession, and access to the privy purse, as they were secretly trying to change the law. How to sell it to the British public was their problem. But their dilemma was unnecessary, because the Princess acquiesced and decided not to marry Capt. Townsend after all.
Why are recent governments soo keen to roll over for the crown? The relationship between Downing Street and Buckingham Palace is one that should cause the public concern, when it allows the crown to behave in contradiction to its own laws and maintains their allowance regardless.
In 2005, the government was keen to roll over again because of Prince Charles and his aging, divorced bride. As both were over the age of 25, well over, the Queen’s permission was redundant, and there was no worry about them reproducing (thankfully) but there was the little problem of marrying a divorcee and a Catholic, which was also an issue. Charles himself was also a divorcee, and of course a widower, so they both needed to marry in a civil ceremony, because it couldn’t be allowed in a church.
But Charles was a Royal and there was also the little problem of the unchanged section 45. There was always the European court of human rights, so Tony Blair’s government appealed on behalf of the Prince, that he was ‘yuumen’ (oh yeah, since when?) and he deserved the right of a ‘yuumen been’ to marry the women of his dreams. As the European court only deals with human rights, they agreed that as a ‘yuumen’, he deserved the right to marry whoever he pleased. The European court does not deal with laws concerning Royalty. So he was granted his human rights, and the government made a statement that the law of 1949, section 45, was irrelevant and that people who dispute the law had not thought it through fully as far as Lord Falconer, current Lord Chancellor was concerned. The law was ‘over cautious’.
If Lord Falconer was so sure of his legal grounds, why has he covered them up?
Doesn’t the public have a right to know?
Legal advice taken on this matter has now been sealed and will only be made available after the Prince’s death. A freedom of information request was denied, and could not be revealed because it was against ‘the public’s interest’, and that the legality of the government’s decision could be challenged in court!
We have always known that laws were for the little people
In 1772, King George 111, created a Royal Marriage Act, which made a law that only the Royal Sovereign could give permission for a Royal marriage, this was to protect the line of succession and to keep riff raff and the undesirables from getting near the throne. No comment.
In 1836, the civil marriage act was introduced into British law, allowing couples the right to a civil ceremony, but explicitly excluding Royalty from benefiting from the same rights in section 45 of the act, it stated that if you were Royal, you could only be married in consecrated ground, by a minister of the Anglican church.
In 1949, the act was amended but section 45 was left intact, so let’s make it plain here, the act of 1949, neither replaced or annulled the exemption pertaining to Royalty.
In 1955, Princess Margaret, the younger sister of the current Queen, wanted to marry a Captain Townsend, divorcee. The Queen refused to give her permission, because Captain Townsend was divorced, but the Princess was told if she wanted a civil ceremony she had to give up her HRH, her line of succession and her access to the Privy Purse (her allowance).
The government of the time, was ready to give the Princess what she wanted, the right to marry in a registry office and the right to keep her HRH, her line of succession, and access to the privy purse, as they were secretly trying to change the law. How to sell it to the British public was their problem. But their dilemma was unnecessary, because the Princess acquiesced and decided not to marry Capt. Townsend after all.
Why are recent governments soo keen to roll over for the crown? The relationship between Downing Street and Buckingham Palace is one that should cause the public concern, when it allows the crown to behave in contradiction to its own laws and maintains their allowance regardless.
In 2005, the government was keen to roll over again because of Prince Charles and his aging, divorced bride. As both were over the age of 25, well over, the Queen’s permission was redundant, and there was no worry about them reproducing (thankfully) but there was the little problem of marrying a divorcee and a Catholic, which was also an issue. Charles himself was also a divorcee, and of course a widower, so they both needed to marry in a civil ceremony, because it couldn’t be allowed in a church.
But Charles was a Royal and there was also the little problem of the unchanged section 45. There was always the European court of human rights, so Tony Blair’s government appealed on behalf of the Prince, that he was ‘yuumen’ (oh yeah, since when?) and he deserved the right of a ‘yuumen been’ to marry the women of his dreams. As the European court only deals with human rights, they agreed that as a ‘yuumen’, he deserved the right to marry whoever he pleased. The European court does not deal with laws concerning Royalty. So he was granted his human rights, and the government made a statement that the law of 1949, section 45, was irrelevant and that people who dispute the law had not thought it through fully as far as Lord Falconer, current Lord Chancellor was concerned. The law was ‘over cautious’.
If Lord Falconer was so sure of his legal grounds, why has he covered them up?
Doesn’t the public have a right to know?
Legal advice taken on this matter has now been sealed and will only be made available after the Prince’s death. A freedom of information request was denied, and could not be revealed because it was against ‘the public’s interest’, and that the legality of the government’s decision could be challenged in court!
We have always known that laws were for the little people
Similar Books
