King Charles III and Queen Consort Camilla (Scorpio/Cancer) + Queen Elizabeth II

[much ado]

What does "coronation invalidated" actually mean? That Charles III will have his status as King of the UK revoked? He's already King, of course. He was formally proclaimed as the sovereign of the United Kingdom by the accession council on September 10. That's all that British law requires.

Only the royal biographer Anthony Holden is saying this. The Church of England is planning to go forward with the coronation.

This article discusses the issue...

Experts play down Coronation crisis fears after royal author Anthony Holden suggested King Charles's ceremony could be invalidated because of his 1994 affair confession

[Gregg]

Orly Taitz is already applying to the Bar in England .

But on a more serious note, if the Archbishop of Canterbury put the oil on his chest and the fancy hat on his head, the Coronation is as valid as it can be. The only "authority" to challenge it is the King as head of the Church or the "legitimate" heir which would be the Prince of Wales and see where this is going?

No SERIOUS expert thinks foe 10 seconds that Charles admission of an affair somehow negates his standing as head of a church founded to legitimize another King's infedelity.

[Sam the Centipede]

That's a stupid opinion, even if it is from an "expert". Firstly, the Church of England was founded (as one Irishman described it to me in the 1970s) "on the balls of Henry the Eighth", so it clearly has no problem with infidelity. Secondly, Charlie Windsor is already king; the coronation doesn't change that one way or the other, which is why it can wait until months after he got the job.

Thirdly, and perhaps most killingly, who has the power to invalidate? Pre-Henry VIII the opinion of the Bishop of Rome carried weight in these matters, but it doesn't now. The courts of law? The courts are the monarchy! – early medieval kings and their teams (the royal court) regularly toured their domain, and at each stop would sit and hear and decide local complaints and disputes. As this burden grew and established law became more formal and more complex, the king and royal court delegated power to professional magistrates and judges, who acted as the agents of the monarchy. The royal connection is why they are called "courts".

So, looked at historically, taking such a dispute to court would be asking the king to decide if he is king. Not likely to get the answer "no", is it?

The opinion reads like a birther piece: identify some irrelevant way in which the new guy might differ from predecessors, imagine a rule that doesn't exist, ignore factual evidence, assert in an ex cathedra manner that this means the new guy cannot have the job, try to attract more bigots and idiots with your bigoted idiocy.

Of course I'm not an expert on any of this or on any history so my interpretation of how courts developed could be over-simplified or even plain wrong, so alternative views – or even facts! – are welcome.

[Suranis]

If Charles II can have 3 mistresses and be coronated, Charles III can have none and be coronated. His "mistress" is his wife now.

talk about shit designed to fill newspapers

[Maybenaut]

I suppose can we expect a lot of flags and yard signs like we have here in the States that say “Fuck Charles III” and “Charles III is Not My King!”

[Ben-Prime]

And that is the true story of King Ralph, for those who remember that John Goodman flick.

[Gregg]

That's a stupid opinion, even if it is from an "expert". Firstly, the Church of England was founded (as one Irishman described it to me in the 1970s) "on the balls of Henry the Eighth", so it clearly has no problem with infidelity. Secondly, Charlie Windsor is already king; the coronation doesn't change that one way or the other, which is why it can wait until months after he got the job.

Thirdly, and perhaps most killingly, who has the power to invalidate? Pre-Henry VIII the opinion of the Bishop of Rome carried weight in these matters, but it doesn't now. The courts of law? The courts are the monarchy! – early medieval kings and their teams (the royal court) regularly toured their domain, and at each stop would sit and hear and decide local complaints and disputes. As this burden grew and established law became more formal and more complex, the king and royal court delegated power to professional magistrates and judges, who acted as the agents of the monarchy. The royal connection is why they are called "courts".

So, looked at historically, taking such a dispute to court would be asking the king to decide if he is king. Not likely to get the answer "no", is it?

The opinion reads like a birther piece: identify some irrelevant way in which the new guy might differ from predecessors, imagine a rule that doesn't exist, ignore factual evidence, assert in an ex cathedra manner that this means the new guy cannot have the job, try to attract more bigots and idiots with your bigoted idiocy.

Of course I'm not an expert on any of this or on any history so my interpretation of how courts developed could be over-simplified or even plain wrong, so alternative views – or even facts! – are welcome.

You got most of the high points right. I'm not sure that "Courts of Law" derive from the Royal Court ("Courts of Law" started in the time of Henry II and he did tour the realm extensively, but his realm also was almost all of Europe west of Fontevrault. His decision to deputize authorities was the origin of the Common Law, which ought to make him a hero of the SovCits if they weren't too ignorant to know who he is.

[Dave from down under]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-20/ ... /101875156

King Charles has told the British government he would like an expected surge in profit from a 900 million pound ($1.6 billion)-a-year wind farm deal for his Crown Estate to go to the "wider public good" rather than to the royal family.

Key points:

The Crown Estate portfolio includes virtually all of the seabed around the United Kingdom
It has issued leases for wind farm projects
A bidding war between energy giants such as BP and Total Energies is delivering the royals a windfall
Under agreements announced on Thursday, the Crown Estate will lease sites for six new offshore wind projects that are capable of generating enough green electricity to power more than seven million homes by 2030.

The leases are collectively worth almost 900 million pounds a year according to Crown Estate financial data, following a bidding frenzy among companies such as oil majors BP and Total Energies.

[Luke]

Only took about a week to get the Prince Harry audiobook from Broward Public Library on Libby, about to tuck in. Haven't followed all the Harry/Meghan saga, still remember the boys from after Diana's passing. Looking forward to hearing his side of the story about "The Firm".

[Dave from down under]

If it is like his recent interview about the book..
It is the story of an entitled (actual as well as figuratively), who is happy for the perks, but not the works, who holds petty grudges and who you wouldn’t talk about sensitive things with as he is likely to sell it in his next book/interview.

Just as well that he is no longer the spare.

[Azastan]

If it is like his recent interview about the book..
It is the story of an entitled (actual as well as figuratively), who is happy for the perks, but not the works, who holds petty grudges and who you wouldn’t talk about sensitive things with as he is likely to sell it in his next book/interview.

Just as well that he is no longer the spare.

I can't fault William and Catherine for not commenting on the book--Harry would seethe about it and then whinge about it to the media

[Luke]

Haven't seen the interviews or the Netflix docu, seems like many many barrels of ink have been spilled over Harry. Got it free from the library. It's breaking records...

NEW YORK (AP) — Prince Harry's “Spare” sold more than 3.2 million copies worldwide after just one week of publication and will likely rank among the bestselling memoirs of all time. Penguin Random House announced Thursday that Prince Harry's headline-making memoir sold 1.6 million copies in the U.S. alone.18 hours ago

[Ben-Prime]

I will admit -- and I don't intend to debate anyone on this -- that I am on Team Harry on this one. I may or may not pick up the actual book, either in hardcopy or kindle format, but since the Princes began forming their own adulthood identities with their divergent choices and causes, I have leaned towards the Harry side of things. I am still there.

It's been rough because I have also been a firm partisan of King Charles, even back when it was unfashionable to admire the guy because he was publicly a dowdy stiff who had disrespected his marriage and his wife, and while I don't cut him a break on that, I was a fan outside of that.

Ah, well, we are human beings full of contradictory impulses.

[Sam the Centipede]

I'm sorta with Ben-Prime on this: Prince Harry ain't never done me no wrong. He has had a difficult time, especially inside his own head, he did good for ex-servicemen (the Invicta Games, etc.), and he married for love.

I don't understand how so many people who have never met the guy or in anyway been affected by his words or actions (other than reading shitty muck-spreading newspapers, which nobody forced them to do) feel entitled to hate the man and his missus.

I have no doubt that racism and misogyny is behind a lot of the vitriol thrown at Meghan. In today's climate, the haters would probably be content with misogyny but the racism is an added bonus.

Writing a book might have been cathartic for Harry, publishing it was probably ill-advised. Yes, there's inconsistency between asking for privacy and writing a tell-all book. But the poor guy is mixed up.

The nastiness of the UK press is depressing: I heard one English comedian paraphrase the Daily Mail's headline when H+M moved to California as something like "Come Back So We Can Tell You To Fuck Off Again!"

[Suranis]

You know, I'm going to say it. I've over heard a lot of people talk about Harry & Megan, and I have heard precisely zero, no-one, nobody mention her race. At all. The woman is whiter than my sister, for crying out loud. I don't even know what "race" she is supposed to be. She's white.

I'm also going to point out that Prince Phillip was Greek.

The British Press is mad at Harry because he told them all to fuck off for his entire life. That's as far as it goes.

As for Misogyny, that's like the Movie company screaming that people hated that Ghostbusters movie because it had all women in it. No, people hated it because it was a shitty movie with awful characters. Screaming "misogyny" was just an excuse to generate outrage for publicity.

I've said this before, but take a step back and look at the situation. He married a woman that was already a well known publicity hound with a father who was also a publicity chaser. She then split him away from his family, his friends, and took him away from his home to another country where he knows no-one and had to depend on her for companionship and support. And then, despite her constantly saying that she just wanted to be left alone and live a private life, she throws herself constantly at the papers and TV cameras to talk about HOW MEAN everyone is to her.

If a Man had done that, people would be screaming alarm bells that he was a gaslighter and an abuser. But she is a stunningly good looking woman, and somehow a minority despite being as white as I am, so we cant say that.

And ya, who else chases publicity and yells about HOW MEEEEAAAAAN everyone is to him? Ya.

You can be starry eyed about the romantic story about the tragic put upon couple, but you can also look at it the other way and see a woman manipulating a man who had the bad luck to fall for a narcissistic publicity hound. When everyone hates the woman, you have to start wondering if its everyone's fault or the woman. The Royal Family had to live with her for a while and they all seem to have gone in the "hating her guts" direction. So what do we know that they don't?

I think Harry will eventually see through her, and will return to England and be taken care of by his Family, quietly and full of regrets. And she will be on talk shows talking about how the Family brainwashed him against her for the rest of time.

[pipistrelle]

I agree with most of what you say, but her mother was Black, like Obama's father. Her appearance leans more toward what we think of as Caucasian, but that doesn't change her parentage. At least on Twitter, many Black Americans see much of the outrage toward her as racist. Some may be and some may not be but that's a lot of the perception.

[Suranis]

Well, over here in Europe "race" has more to do with what you look like than your family tree. Even after I read that, I still think it's bizarre people are dragging race into it.

[Mr brolin]

In this specific case, I am very much in Suranis's camp.

Trying to give the man as much leeway and credit as possible I've watched the various interviews, write ups and read the book.

During the run up to the wedding, during and post same, the British press were overwhelming supportive of Meghan and Harry. The press and public were in the main excited, happy, looking forward to "The Fabulous Four" being a force to refresh the monarchy, build the charitable endeavours, strengthen the Commonwealth and so forth.

At the point of Harry meeting Meghan, he had a visibly happy relationship with his brother and sister in law, was plainly happy with being an uncle and had a coterie of loyal, tight lipped friends. His work with the Invictus games was held up as not just a " good thing" but an actively positive force and support for physically, mentally and emotionally injured veterans in many countries.

We are now in the situation where he has pissed every element of his life away, he is isolated by choice from family, friends, peers, even his country.

The book is IMHO the equivalent of an extended drunken text by an ex, blaming them for all his actions, how they drove him to beat them, how they are the guilty party and so on and so on.

The fact that the book is replete with not just vague and varied personal interpretation of facts but outright lies, I'm afraid simply shows how he has bought into all the psycho babble, "my truth", and controlling behaviour by his partner that if the genders were reversed would be called out as controlling, coercive and abusive.

[noblepa]

This talk of "invalidating" King Charles' coronation, whatever that means, made me think of a question.

While I don't believe that Charles affair with Camilla while he was still married to Diana is a crime, it was bad optics for a future King.

My question is this: Does the British legal or political system have any formal procedure for removing a monarch who is shown to have committed real "high crimes and misdemeanors"? I don't know of any, at least any that is formalized in law. Let me just say that I don't believe that Charles has committed any crimes.

Parliament's nuclear option would be to abolish the monarchy altogether, and there has been talk over the years of doing just that, but is there any action, short of that that can be taken to "impeach" a monarch?

[much ado]

Well, because the UK has an unwritten constitution, parliament can essentially make it up on the fly. So although there is no established mechanism to depose a king in favor of his heir, it could still be done if there were enough political momentum behind it. After all, King Charles I was deposed 30 January 1649 when he was beheaded. If parliament could do that, it can do anything.

In my opinion...

[Suranis]

The Prime Minister could demand his abdication, but I don't think there is any direct method to force the Monarch out. I am by no means an expert on this though.

Putting the king on trial as a method of removal has been done before, as in Charles I versus Oliver Cromwell.

[much ado]

Putting the king on trial as a method of removal has been done before, as in Charles I versus Oliver Cromwell.

Yes, that method has precedent. Put the King on trial in parliament for his misdeeds, and if convicted, declare his sovereignty terminated and declare his heir the new monarch.

ETA: Basically, it would be a forced abdication, and the details would be handled as they were for the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936.

[Foggy]

As a citizen of the only land I have ever known that is named after a decapitated King of England, I shall vote against decapitating King Charles III.

Or, as they say in the Navy, "I've got mine; pull up the ladder."

[p0rtia]

I can see why people would take different views on Harry. My own take, based on what I saw from quite a ways away, was that in his youth he didn't look like someone I'd want to know, through no fault of his own, but that the military changed him completely into someone I liked and respected.

As for Meghan--I am appalled by the amount of shade that is thrown on her here and around the world for what seem to me to be foolish reasons. According to the polls, these folks are in the minority, so that's reassuring. Too also, the amount of racism she encountered in the UK was sickening.

[sad-cafe]

I read the book

Willy and Pa are asses but camilla the rottweiler can f right off