William to Marry Kate

[William Ashley]

I don't recall hearing about any consultations like with Princess Diana -- the Queen actually in person met with Canadian cabinet if I recall correctly.

this time nothing...

what does this say.......................

[M.Dancer]

I don't recall hearing about any consultations like with Princess Diana -- the Queen actually in person met with Canadian cabinet if I recall correctly.

this time nothing...

what does this say.......................

1) I find no mentions of the Queen meeting the Cabinet (surely the privvy counsel?) in any case, the consent was given by the GG in a meeting with the privy council. The Queen was not present.

2)It is the Queen who gives consent by law ....here the GG would follow suit.

[fellowtraveller]

Our nation will collectively have to consider an appropriate gift for the heir to the Throne and his spouse.

I'm thinking either steak knives or Quebec.

[Michael Hardner]

... or Quebec.

Too risky. Let's stick with Eskimo carvings... those always work.

[ToadBrother]

I don't recall hearing about any consultations like with Princess Diana -- the Queen actually in person met with Canadian cabinet if I recall correctly.

this time nothing...

what does this say.......................

If the Government has not been consulted yet, it will be.

[g_bambino]

I don't recall hearing about any consultations like with Princess Diana -- the Queen actually in person met with Canadian cabinet if I recall correctly.

this time nothing...

Nothing so far.

The approval of the Canadian Privy Council is required for royal marriages that will produce heirs to the throne. In the case of The Prince of Wales and his former wife, Charles proposed to Diana in February 1981 and the CPC gave its consent in March. The Queen was not present.

[+]

Edited November 16, 2010 by g_bambino

[guyser]

Too risky. Let's stick with Eskimo carvings... those always work.

A box of CD's always seems appropriate.

(kudos if you know where that comes from)

[g_bambino]

Let's stick with Eskimo carvings... those always work.

For fending off home invaders, they sure seem to.

[GostHacked]

Is this what people think is news these days?

[ToadBrother]

Nothing so far.

The approval of the Canadian Privy Council is required for royal marriages that will produce heirs to the throne. In the case of The Prince of Wales and his former wife, Charles proposed to Diana in February 1981 and the CPC gave its consent in March. The Queen was not present.

[+]

Would the Queen even be present in Britain? I don't see how it's necessary for the Privy Council of any of the Realms to have to have direct contact with her. Strictly speaking, all that is required is that the governments of the Realms be in agreement, and to a large degree, since no one has ever really tried to claim the throne since the days of the Young Pretender who didn't fit the requirements of the Act of Settlement. I don't know what Middleton's religion is, but I'm assuming she's an Anglican.

[g_bambino]

Is this what people think is news these days?

Sadly, no, news of the engagement of the future King of Canada tends to take a back seat to "news" about Lady Gaga's menstrual cycle, who Katie Holmes wore last night, and what Stephen Harper ate for breakfast.

[M.Dancer]

Would the Queen even be present in Britain?

She did for Charles second marriage, although it was said there was no need as the union would produce no offspring..

[g_bambino]

Would the Queen even be present in Britain? I don't see how it's necessary for the Privy Council of any of the Realms to have to have direct contact with her. Strictly speaking, all that is required is that the governments of the Realms be in agreement, and to a large degree, since no one has ever really tried to claim the throne since the days of the Young Pretender who didn't fit the requirements of the Act of Settlement. I don't know what Middleton's religion is, but I'm assuming she's an Anglican.

Doubtful that the Queen would be there. She may have had to give consent to an Order-in-Council (and the governor general did likewise here), but I don't really know.

Middleton would have to be an Anglican or become one before next year, given what that pesky Act of Settlement stipulates.

[ToadBrother]

She did for Charles second marriage, although it was said there was no need as the union would produce no offspring..

The second marriage was something of an anomaly, and because it could have, at least theoretically, effected Charles' future role as head of the Church of England, I think the Queen probably felt some special care needed to be taken. As it was, they were married in a Presbyterian church (which he will also be head of in turn) just to make sure that no one on the Anglican side of things got too hot about it. Still, I've talked to a few CofE hardliners who feel that Charles, as a divorcée, has no right to become Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and thus cannot be king. Clearly no such sentiment has been wide-spread in Government or in Parliament.

[Saipan]

Is it really past Nov 17 2010 02:27 AM ?

What happen to this Forum again?

[g_bambino]

The second marriage was something of an anomaly, and because it could have, at least theoretically, effected Charles' future role as head of the Church of England, I think the Queen probably felt some special care needed to be taken. As it was, they were married in a Presbyterian church (which he will also be head of in turn) just to make sure that no one on the Anglican side of things got too hot about it.

You're right about the concerns around Charles' divorce. But, in the end, he and Camilla were wed at the Windsor Guildhall and immediately thereafter took part in a service of blessing in the chapel at Windsor Castle.

In other news, it seems the engagement news has finally given our politicians something to agree on:

CBC: Our leaders agree... on the royal engagement, that is

[CANADIEN]

As far as I am concerned, the only consent they really need is each other's - like any other couple.

May they have many joyful days.

Edited November 17, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Topaz]

Well, lets just hope that William is nothing like his dad and his parents marriage was doomed from the start.

[CANADIEN]

I love the line from The Queen where Michael Sheen's Tony Blair exclaims "She through it all away!" While I'm sure being married to Charles wasn't much fun, particularly if the rumors of infidelities were true, but she was hardly the first consort to a Prince of Wales to have put up with that kind of behavior (I would almost think a sensible bride would realize that, more than likely, these dalliances were part of the package), but she would have been Queen of England, in a unique position to push all those charities she loved so dearly, to be as big as she so clearly wanted to be. Instead, she behaved like a spoiled brat, went out of her way to try to smack not just Charles (who I'll readily admit deserved it) but the Queen and the entire institution of the Monarchy.

Not to argue that Diana was a saint. Far fro it. But she should have done what? Just smile and take her husband's obvious lack of love and flagrant love for another woman because Queen and Country demanded it?

This was the 1980's, not the 1580's. As far as I concered, the Royal Family got everything that was coming to it.

[M.Dancer]

Well, lets just hope that William is nothing like his dad and his parents marriage was doomed from the start.

In that case, lets hope he's nothing like his mother either...

[ToadBrother]

In that case, lets hope he's nothing like his mother either...

Indeed. I think enough time has passed that we can stop talking about Saint Diana, and talk about the real Diana.

I love the line from The Queen where Michael Sheen's Tony Blair exclaims "She through it all away!" While I'm sure being married to Charles wasn't much fun, particularly if the rumors of infidelities were true, but she was hardly the first consort to a Prince of Wales to have put up with that kind of behavior (I would almost think a sensible bride would realize that, more than likely, these dalliances were part of the package), but she would have been Queen of England, in a unique position to push all those charities she loved so dearly, to be as big as she so clearly wanted to be. Instead, she behaved like a spoiled brat, went out of her way to try to smack not just Charles (who I'll readily admit deserved it) but the Queen and the entire institution of the Monarchy.

But I don't see William being that sort of a person. He'll honor his mother's memory, of course, but even in the more muted response coming from Buckingham Palace suggests that the lessons of the past thirty years have been learned, and that the real wisdom is first and foremost to manage expectations, and secondly to allow the future King his own space. And let's remember for all the oft-talked about bad marriages of members of the Royal Family there have been over the centuries a number of successful unions.

In the case of William, of course, he'll have the advantage of reminding everyone of his mother with more of his father's and grandmother's sense of duty.

Edited November 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

As far as I am concerned, the only consent they really need is each other's - like any other couple.

May they have many joyful days.

Clearly the Queen has been willing to allow this to run its course. The Charles-Diana union was as much as anything else a concocted media event. It went off spectacularly well, for a while, and then became an unmitigated train wreck.

[maple_leafs182]

who cares, lets drop the royal family.

[g_bambino]

who cares, lets drop the royal family.

Let's not and tell you we did.