The Duke of Windsor

**jordanjm** · 22nd August 07, 05:10 PM

First I would like to say please correct me if I am wrong.

Mudd,

From what I have learned (Being from and in the USA), When Princess Diana passed away that left Price Charles set again for the throne, as her death made the matter of a divorce moot.

I did like the first picture, and looking at the gillies, they appear to be buckles where the laces are today.

**Big Paul** · 22nd August 07, 06:10 PM

Cool pics!

Here is another on the houndstooth outfit.

**Nick** · 22nd August 07, 06:33 PM

Great picture! Looks like he left off the vest in favor of a turtleneck. It's difficult to tell, but is he wearing a belt in this picture?

**Peter C.** · 22nd August 07, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by jordanjm

First I would like to say please correct me if I am wrong.

Mudd,

From what I have learned (Being from and in the USA), When Princess Diana passed away that left Price Charles set again for the throne, as her death made the matter of a divorce moot.

I did like the first picture, and looking at the gillies, they appear to be buckles where the laces are today.

Prince Charles has always been in line for, or as you say set for the throne. He can divorce and still become king. The problem is if he becomes king he will be head of the Church of England and it is the Church of England that does not allow divorcees to remarry. Charles has not only remarried (as you say Diana's death may have made that OK) but he has married a divorcee.

Having said that, his marriage to Camilla was with the blessing of the Queen who is head of the Church of England at the moment.

I certainly hope he does become king, if only because his son is much too young to become king and completely lose his freedom at the moment.

Peter

**McClef** · 23rd August 07, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by mudd

I heard the he had to abdicate because the King could not be married to a divorcee. Where does that leave Prince Charles?

The attitude towards divorce in the 1930s was very different. Queen Mary considered that nobody who was divorced was an innocent party and divorced persons were excluded from the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. Both church and state were against it and the then Archbishop of Canterbury would have refused to crown Edward. Even in the early 1950s it was taboo for royals and Princess Margaret, even though she was moving down the Line of Succession, was dissuaded from marrying Peter Townsend, a divorced man.

There have been several royal divorces since - Margaret from Lord Snowdon, Anne from Mark Phillips, Andrew from Sarah Ferguson and Charles from Diana.
Technically her death would have dissolved the union in any case and rendered Charles free to marry, even by the standards of the 1930s, but Camilla is divorced and that would then have made her like Wallis, an "unsuitable" consort.

Now church and state have a different attitude and both agreed that there was no Constitutional impediment. There was a question about the legality of registry office marriage for members of the royal family, but government legal advice gave it the go ahead and the Archbishop felt able to bless the marriage afterwards. The Queen did not attend the civil ceremony but she did attend the blessing.

A further contrast is regarding the use of titles. Edward had tried to overcome opposition to his marriage to Wallis by suggesting that she need not become Queen but take a lesser title. Baldwin (PM at the time) stated that such a Morganatic solution was Constitutionally impossible and unknown to British law and that taking a lesser title would imply that Wallis was unsuitable to be the consort of the monarch (he thought she was unsuitable anyway but he was making a legal statement). Yet she was denied the title HRH to which she was entitled by the same reasoning!

Camilla is not a Morganatic wife. She has chosen to use the lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall but is de facto Princess of Wales, whether she uses the title or not. When Charles becomes King she will also be de facto Queen Consort - this talk of "Princess Consort" is nonsense and Constitutionally indefensible.

I hope this clarifies the understanding of the situation for those interested!

Originally Posted by Nick

McClef, do you mean it was held on by gravity, like a proper Roman toga?

Yes - I have tried to find a photo on the net to illustrate it but have not been able to so far. But unlike a toga it's simply folded and worn over the shoulder. I have only seen it on photographs of Edward and of Prince Albert (George VI). Can't be comfortable and requires a certain deportment to prevent the embarrassment of it slipping off!