Camilla

[c***@yahoo.com]

About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

[David Amicus]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

Is there a precedent for it?

[The Chief]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

Great White Queen, She Who Must Be Obeyed, Chuck just pawn in game of life...

Regards,
The Chief

[hihgdm]

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

Great White Queen, She Who Must Be Obeyed, Chuck just pawn in game of life...
Regards,
The Chief

I seem to remember the press reporting that it was Charles' preference, for the very obvious reason that lots of people, rightly or wrongly, would say that Diana was cheated out of becoming queen, not least by Camilla, who already doesn't use her title of Princess of Wales. That public sentiment has probably diminished over time and the Queen probably couldn't give a stuff. After all she'll be dead.

[The Chief]

Post by hihgdm

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

Great White Queen, She Who Must Be Obeyed, Chuck just pawn in game of life...
Regards,
The Chief

I seem to remember the press reporting that it was Charles' preference, for the very obvious reason that lots of people, rightly or wrongly, would say that Diana was cheated out of becoming queen, not least by Camilla, who already doesn't use her title of Princess of Wales. That public sentiment has probably diminished over time and the Queen probably couldn't give a stuff. After all she'll be dead.

As Camilla wears the trousers, perhaps Chuck can be Queen? That would solve the problem!

Regards,
The Chief

[c***@hush.ai]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

There is a precedent of an unwanted Queen. Caroline of Brunswick.
The precedent says that any lawful wife of a man who accedes as King becomes by operation of law the Queen for all intents and purposes unless both Houses of Parliament (and the King) pass an Act specifying otherwise - and in case of Caroline, the Commons were not interested in passing a Bill of Pains and Penalties to such an effect.

[David Amicus]

I am no fan of Diana. I thought that she should have been sent to the Tower. I want Camilla to become Queen and Diana long forgotten!

[The Chief]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should have been executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be treason escapes me.

Regards,
The Chief

[Louis Epstein]

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should
have been executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be
treason escapes me.

Chiefy,
Never in all your seditious babblings that Her Most Excellent Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II is "a pretender" have you made clear just who you
regard as the person properly entitled to the fanatical worship as sole
proprietor of the laws and institutions of the United Kingdom that go
with the Crown.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[The Chief]

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should
have been executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be
treason escapes me.

Chiefy,
Never in all your seditious babblings that Her Most Excellent Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II is "a pretender" have you made clear just who you
regard as the person properly entitled to the fanatical worship as sole
proprietor of the laws and institutions of the United Kingdom that go
with the Crown.

All power to the People! Up the Republic! Down with the Monarchy!

The Chief

[Louis Epstein]

Post by The Chief

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should
have been executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be
treason escapes me.

Chiefy,
Never in all your seditious babblings that Her Most Excellent Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II is "a pretender" have you made clear just who you
regard as the person properly entitled to the fanatical worship as sole
proprietor of the laws and institutions of the United Kingdom that go
with the Crown.

All power to the People! Up the Republic! Down with the Monarchy!

You not only score 0 out of 3,
you fail to answer the question.
Her Majesty can only be a "pretender"
if some other PARTICULAR PERSON has
a better claim to be SOLE owner of
the UK Government...no government
that draws authority from nothing
higher than its subjects can have
any legitimacy at all.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[c***@hush.ai]

Post by The Chief

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort
when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should
have been executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be
treason escapes me.

Chiefy,
Never in all your seditious babblings that Her Most Excellent Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II is "a pretender" have you made clear just who you
regard as the person properly entitled to the fanatical worship as sole
proprietor of the laws and institutions of the United Kingdom that go
with the Crown.

All power to the People! Up the Republic! Down with the Monarchy!

You not only score 0 out of 3, you fail to answer the question.
Her Majesty can only be a "pretender" if some other PARTICULAR PERSON has a
better claim to be SOLE owner of the UK Government...no government that draws > authority from nothing higher than its subjects can have any legitimacy at
all.

No, she cannot. If she in fact rules UK - OR is recognized as a figurehead by a government that in fact does - that makes her "usurper", not "pretender".

As for a better claim - HBM Franz, King of Bayern, England, Scotland, Ireland and France?
Does "Britannic" Majesty predate 1688?
Empire (of India) was added by Orangist usurper Victoria, so is that particular title claimed by Franz?

[Donald4564]

Post by c***@hush.ai

Post by The Chief

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort
when Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should
have been executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be
treason escapes me.

Chiefy,
Never in all your seditious babblings that Her Most Excellent Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II is "a pretender" have you made clear just who you
regard as the person properly entitled to the fanatical worship as sole
proprietor of the laws and institutions of the United Kingdom that go
with the Crown.

All power to the People! Up the Republic! Down with the Monarchy!

You not only score 0 out of 3, you fail to answer the question.
Her Majesty can only be a "pretender" if some other PARTICULAR PERSON has a
better claim to be SOLE owner of the UK Government...no government that draws > authority from nothing higher than its subjects can have any legitimacy at
all.

No, she cannot. If she in fact rules UK - OR is recognized as a figurehead by a government that in fact does - that makes her "usurper", not "pretender".
As for a better claim - HBM Franz, King of Bayern, England, Scotland, Ireland and France?
Does "Britannic" Majesty predate 1688?
Empire (of India) was added by Orangist usurper Victoria, so is that particular title claimed by Franz?

Franz, Duke in Bavaria has stated that he has no claim on any throne other than that of Bavaria - as did his predecessors. Surely a pretender must be someone who is active in their pursuit?

And, another thing, at her coronation H.M. Queen Elizabeth II was presented to her peers as "your undoubted Queen" - where was Big Chief Runamuck then - or others of his ilk?

Most of us here at alt.royalty are waiting for news of Big Chief Runamuck's emigration to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or some other country he would find suitable.

Regards
Donald Binks

Regards
Donald Binks


Regards
Donald Binks

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 04:11:15 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<***@top.put.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Louis Epstein
Her Majesty can only be a "pretender"
if some other PARTICULAR PERSON has
a better claim to be SOLE owner of
the UK Government...no government

False. A pretender is someone with a claim (valid or not). Are
you stating that Her Majesty has no claim to the throne?

Post by Louis Epstein
that draws authority from nothing
higher than its subjects can have
any legitimacy at all.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[c***@hush.ai]

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when
Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should have been > executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be treason escapes me.

Ask Anne Boleyn and her lovers.
She did not die a Queen, or lawful wife or Henry VIII. Nor was her orphan daughter a lawful daughter of King, because her marriage was annulled. On what grounds, by the way?
Anyway: it is not illegal to cheat King with his mere mistress (which Anne Boleyn turned out to have been).
If Anne Boleyn´s marriage to the King was a nullity, shouldn´t annulment of her marriage have annulled her guilt of treasonable breach of such a void marriage?

[The Chief]

Post by c***@hush.ai

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when
Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should have been > executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be treason escapes me.

Ask Anne Boleyn and her lovers.
She did not die a Queen, or lawful wife or Henry VIII. Nor was her orphan daughter a lawful daughter of King, because her marriage was annulled. On what grounds, by the way?
Anyway: it is not illegal to cheat King with his mere mistress (which Anne Boleyn turned out to have been).
If Anne Boleyn´s marriage to the King was a nullity, shouldn´t annulment of her marriage have annulled her guilt of treasonable breach of such a void marriage?

She had all the world-famous protections of English "justice" and was found guilty by a jury of her peers of vile and 'orrid crimes, such as incest! What is there to complain about?

I find little sympathy for a woman who betrayed her mistress, the rightful queen (Catherine), and was personally responsible for the introduction of 500 years of heresy and apostasy in England, along with the hundreds of thousands of deaths consequent upon that - all for her own vanity.

Regards,
The Chief

[David Amicus]

Post by The Chief

Post by c***@hush.ai

Post by c***@yahoo.com
About Camilla the Queen has said she will be known as Princess Consort when
Charles ascends. Must Charles do this?

I seem to recall that she was supposedly guilty of treason, and should have been > executed. Although how disloyalty to a pretender can be treason escapes me.

Ask Anne Boleyn and her lovers.
She did not die a Queen, or lawful wife or Henry VIII. Nor was her orphan daughter a lawful daughter of King, because her marriage was annulled. On what grounds, by the way?
Anyway: it is not illegal to cheat King with his mere mistress (which Anne Boleyn turned out to have been).
If Anne Boleyn´s marriage to the King was a nullity, shouldn´t annulment of her marriage have annulled her guilt of treasonable breach of such a void marriage?

She had all the world-famous protections of English "justice" and was found guilty by a jury of her peers of vile and 'orrid crimes, such as incest! What is there to complain about?
I find little sympathy for a woman who betrayed her mistress, the rightful queen (Catherine), and was personally responsible for the introduction of 500 years of heresy and apostasy in England, along with the hundreds of thousands of deaths consequent upon that - all for her own vanity.
Regards,
The Chief

I celebrate every 19 May the anniversary of the execution of Anne Boleyn. Imo she is the worst woman who ever lived in the English speaking world.

[Chuck]

Post by c***@hush.ai
Ask Anne Boleyn and her lovers.
She did not die a Queen, or lawful wife or Henry VIII. Nor was her orphan daughter a lawful daughter of King, because her marriage was annulled. On what grounds, by the way?

...

Post by c***@hush.ai
If Anne Boleyn´s marriage to the King was a nullity, shouldn´t annulment of her marriage have annulled her guilt of treasonable breach of such a void marriage?

You are absolutely correct about the effect of the annulment. The marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn was officially annulled two days before her execution. That decree of nullity should have acquitted Anne of High Treason since the treason was based on her being the king's wife---and she wasn't. How could she commit adultery if she wasn't married? Her and her supposed lovers committed no crime, but they were all actually innocent in any case. As to the grounds for the annulment, Francis Hackett, in his 1929 biography of King Henry, and Antonia Fraser in her book "The Wives of Henry VIII" state that the grounds were never made known. Both Hackett and JJ Scarisbrick in his biography of Henry state that cause was, or probably was, Henry's affair with Mary Boleyn, which would creae the same sort of impediment that forbade his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, as she had been his brother's wife. Fraser believes the cause is the other possible ground, Anne's pre-contract and possible marriage with Henry Lord Percy. The annulment was probably really meant to disbar Elizabeth from any clam to the throne.

[The Chief]

Post by Chuck

Post by c***@hush.ai
Ask Anne Boleyn and her lovers.
She did not die a Queen, or lawful wife or Henry VIII. Nor was her orphan daughter a lawful daughter of King, because her marriage was annulled. On what grounds, by the way?

...

Post by c***@hush.ai
If Anne Boleyn´s marriage to the King was a nullity, shouldn´t annulment of her marriage have annulled her guilt of treasonable breach of such a void marriage?

You are absolutely correct about the effect of the annulment. The marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn was officially annulled two days before her execution. That decree of nullity should have acquitted Anne of High Treason since the treason was based on her being the king's wife---and she wasn't. How could she commit adultery if she wasn't married? Her and her supposed lovers committed no crime, but they were all actually innocent in any case. As to the grounds for the annulment, Francis Hackett, in his 1929 biography of King Henry, and Antonia Fraser in her book "The Wives of Henry VIII" state that the grounds were never made known. Both Hackett and JJ Scarisbrick in his biography of Henry state that cause was, or probably was, Henry's affair with Mary Boleyn, which would creae the same sort of impediment that forbade his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, as she had been his brother's wife. Fraser believes the cause is the other possible ground, Anne's pre-contract and possible marriage with Henry Lord Percy. The annulment was probably really meant to disbar Elizabeth from any clam to the throne.

I would think that the whole point of the "annulment" was to avoid the scandal of executing a "queen," not to change the outcome of the trial? And of course, she was (supposedly) the "queen" when convicted and sentenced. Just the majesty of the English legal system in full flow!

Regards,
The Chief

[David Amicus]

Post by The Chief

Post by Chuck

Post by c***@hush.ai
Ask Anne Boleyn and her lovers.
She did not die a Queen, or lawful wife or Henry VIII. Nor was her orphan daughter a lawful daughter of King, because her marriage was annulled. On what grounds, by the way?

...

Post by c***@hush.ai
If Anne Boleyn´s marriage to the King was a nullity, shouldn´t annulment of her marriage have annulled her guilt of treasonable breach of such a void marriage?

You are absolutely correct about the effect of the annulment. The marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn was officially annulled two days before her execution. That decree of nullity should have acquitted Anne of High Treason since the treason was based on her being the king's wife---and she wasn't. How could she commit adultery if she wasn't married? Her and her supposed lovers committed no crime, but they were all actually innocent in any case. As to the grounds for the annulment, Francis Hackett, in his 1929 biography of King Henry, and Antonia Fraser in her book "The Wives of Henry VIII" state that the grounds were never made known. Both Hackett and JJ Scarisbrick in his biography of Henry state that cause was, or probably was, Henry's affair with Mary Boleyn, which would creae the same sort of impediment that forbade his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, as she had been his brother's wife. Fraser believes the cause is the other possible ground, Anne's pre-contract and possible marriage with Henry Lord Percy. The annulment was probably really meant to disbar Elizabeth from any clam to the throne.

I would think that the whole point of the "annulment" was to avoid the scandal of executing a "queen," not to change the outcome of the trial? And of course, she was (supposedly) the "queen" when convicted and sentenced. Just the majesty of the English legal system in full flow!
Regards,
The Chief

Since Henry and Anne were never validly married there was no marriage to be annulled.

[Chuck]

Post by The Chief
I would think that the whole point of the "annulment" was to avoid the scandal of executing a "queen," not to change the outcome of the trial? And of course, she was (supposedly) the "queen" when convicted and sentenced. Just the majesty of the English legal system in full flow!
Regards,
The Chief

The main problem with that argument is that Katherine Howard, Henry's fifth wife and Anne's cousin, was executed she died a Queen. There were several very valid grounds to have her marriage to Henry annulled. No attempt was made to do so. The main difference between Katherine and Anne was that Katherine did not have a child. FWIW, its very possible neither of them committed adultery. They simply became inconvenient. The charges against Anne were bogus and almost everybody knew that at the time. As to Katherine Howard, she never had a trial but was convicted by a bill of attainder. Her supposed lovers Thomas Culpeper and Henry Derrham were never convicted of bedding the queen (at least not after her marriage) but only of desiring to do so. Also of endangering the king's person and his life. Also of planning and intending to have sexual relations. But actually doing the deed? Nobody was convicted of that.