« Judeo-Christian Countries? | Main | Currying Flavor »

February 23, 2005

Comments

Blimpish

Except the fact that Her Maj is also (I believe) the supreme justice, and so could pardon any conviction. You can't have monarchy under law - only within it.

I don't see the big trouble here - it's a standard English compromise through a difficult situation for all parties. The bigger problem is the whole Marriages Act position, which seems very weak to me. I can't understand why they aren't marrying in Scotland (at Balmoral), just to make absolutely sure on that one.

Mrs. Peperium

Actually the Queen is trying very hard to be a very good Christian and a very good Monarch. This is very tricky and shows still how close the C of E is to the Catholic church on the books. In the Catholic church, one cannot attend a non-valid wedding; a remarriage without an annulment in another denomination or a marriage to a Catholic to a non-Catholic in another denomination. If you are not aware of people's statuses, you are exempted. But if you are aware, then there is no exemption. You are free to attend if you want to but you have put yourself in mortal sin. Free booze and an excellent meal isn't worth mortal sin. Obviously the confessional releases you but there are still penances to be paid. Religion is for grown-ups, like taxes and upright love affairs that result in marriage.

Mrs. Peperium

Blimpish, the Magna Carta was about the King not being above the law. Clearly the King-to-be's desires are being reigned in by both the demands of the law (the license for allowing a civil marriage to take place at Windsor Castle has not been disregarded) and the demands of the Church (the ABC did not allow a Church wedding). I say Bravo England.

Misspent

I just can't get myself worked into a tizzy with all you flibbertigibbets on this.

Mrs. Peperium

This is actually (to use a favorite phrase of Bill Clinton) an historic moment. I realize I come across as an old prig but frankly history is on my side as well as DeBrett' Peerage.

Blimpish

As I said, within the law, but still above it. Kings have always had liberal rights (i.e., rights over themselves) but for the rest of us such rights are always contingent. You can't exactly have a King and treat them like a citizen: it'd be beside the point.

Mrs. Peperium

Fair point.

Blimpish

Not that you aren't practically correct - but it's been that way since Edward VIII certainly and William III in many ways. It would take a lot for the Crown to stand up to Parliament and law. It's in their interests to play by the rules, otherwise they'd give an opening to the grotty 'republican' (sneer quote intended) types.

One of the valuable features of the monarchy is that it allows the Crown to in effect rebel against the powers-that-be, without breaking the constitution. If those powers-that-be keep going the way they are going, then the public might well back that...

Monjo

Anyway Charles isnt King (yet). The Navy, Army, Air Force, Police Force, Prison Officers, Prisons, the Courts etc are all in the Queen's name, not Parliament's. This is an important distinction constitutionally.
In the US you will have court cases that are 'Mrs Jane Doe vs Florida' ours are 'Mrs Jane Does vs The Queen (or The Crown)'.

I am not entirely sure of the Queen's benefits, the one I do know is she doesnt need a licence plate on her cars. She may have more, perhaps being even free from being convicted for murder, Blimpish may know more.

In the US, as far as I know members of Delta Force are above the law, I have no clue as to the President's perks (other than getting blowjobs, oh wait.. that was the last Mr P).

Blimp: If we have another civil war, I would be a Cavalier, and when we win I wanna be Duke of France (well after we win the civil war, a bit of Empire-building will be in order).

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

It Goes Without Saying

  • All original material published here is the property of the writer who penned it. Stealing is not only frowned upon but will be dealt with by strong-armed men trained in the art of legal jujitsu. The views put forth here are not the views of any employer we know which is most unfortunate.
Blog powered by Typepad