| suze
|
| 64462. Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:55 pm |
 |
|
Two answers.
The first answer is that Henry VIII made the rules to suit himself, and no-one who wanted to keep their head on top of their shoulders argued too much.
The more serious answer:
Bigamy is illegal under English law, and a bigamous marriage is void. It doesn't even have to be annulled, because it's not a marriage. Assuming the bigamist to be a man, the innocent woman remains a spinster (to use the legal term) - she's not "previous marriage dissolved" as I and many others are.
If one enters into a second marriage while still in the first marriage, then the second is bigamous. It's legal only if the first marriage has been ended by death of spouse, dissolved by divorce, or annulled.
But to do what Henry did, and enter into a second marriage before the ending of the first, is bigamous. Since it is illegal to enter into a marriage knowing it to be invalid, he can't wriggle out by saying that he knew all along that the existing marriage was phoney. (Since Henry made it law that brides must be virgo intacta, he must have entered into a fair few marriages that he knew were invalid.)
The odd bit. Annulment means that the marriage is regarded as never having happened. Therefore, any children of an annulled marriage were surely born outside wedlock. But the Catholic Church holds that such children are not illegitimate. How can that work? |
|
|
|
 |
| samivel
|
| 64480. Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:41 am |
|
|
I feel dizzy.
;) |
|
|
|
|
| QI Individual
|
| 64485. Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:20 am |
|
|
| djgordy wrote: | I'm Henry the eighth I am,
Henry the eighth I am, I am.
I got married to the widow next door,
She's been married seven times before,
And every one was an Henry (Henry!)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (No Sam!)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry,
Henry the eighth I am |
That would be 'ennery wouldn't it?
_________________
Ahh... You gentlemen must be from the Spanish Inquisition.
I've been expecting you. |
|
|
|
|
| QI Individual
|
| 64487. Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:36 am |
|
|
Funny.... I didn't know the song about 'enery the eighth had such a history. I only knew it from the Herman's Hermits version. djgordy's reference to it made me look around a bit and I discovered there's even a Wikipedia article about it.
| Wikipedia wrote: | "I'm Henery the Eighth, I Am" or "I'm Henry the Eighth, I Am" is a 1910 British music hall song by Fred Murray and R. P. Weston. It was a signature song of music hall star Harry Champion. Printed sources vary, but the music requires the name "Henry" to be pronounced as three syllables. In the well-known chorus, Henery explains that his wife had been married seven times before:
I'm Henery the Eighth, I am!
Henery the Eighth I am! I am!
I got married to the widow next door,
She's been married seven times before.
Every one was a Henery
She wouldn't have a Willie or a Sam
I'm her eighth old man named Henery
Henery the Eighth I am.
The song is often sung with a Cockney pronunciation,
"I'm 'er eyeth ol' man nymed 'Enery."
It was popularized for a new generation by Herman's Hermits in 1965 in their album, Herman's Hermits On Tour. Herman's Hermits omitted the scene-setting verses and merely repeated the chorus over and over. One story says that Hermits vocalist Peter Noone simply forgot the words to the verses and spontaneously called out "Second verse, same as the first." The song topped the US charts, but was considered too old-fashioned to release in the UK. |
There's a bit more in the article including an external link to a 1911 version by Harry Champion. It includes the verses HH left out. Because it has a considerable hiss I couldn't resist cleaning it up. A very small effort with modern day software. I placed the de-noised version back on the web so you can hear or download that one too.
(I noticed the site very annoyingly refuses to let you download the file when you block its cookies so if you as a rule refuse cookies you'll have to allow them (for the duration of the session) for this site).
_________________
Ahh... You gentlemen must be from the Spanish Inquisition.
I've been expecting you. |
|
|
|
|
| Lawlord
|
| 67175. Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:00 pm |
|
|
and Sir Michael Foster appears to be saying
| Quote: | "It goes without question that Parliament has the right to say who is Queen".
In which case, it does legitimise her reign - which I guess is something of a relief, although since 1931 what Foster says is not strictly valid.
Since that year, any change in the rules of succession must also be passed by the parliaments of the sixteen other commonwealth realms of which HM is also the Queen.
There was a court action brought in Canada which alleged that the rules of succession violated the Canadian constitution (which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion). The decision was along the lines that this was quite possibly true, but would cause so much trouble that - in this one case - an 18th century English law would take precedence over the Canadian constitution.
As for James I/VI, well yes I've heard that suggestion before. Who knows, but fortunately the later Act of Succession clears the matter up for now. Until a future putative Catholic King or Queen takes it to the European Court ... |
Sorry to bore everyone but i saw this i had to pipe up.
What Foster says is still correct the Act of Settlement 1700 is still valid and was extended to cover Scotland and Ireland under the Treaties of Union (1707 and 1800). And as already pointed out this sorted who could becomes king or Queen, of England, France and Ireland and was settled upon Princess Sophia of Hanover and granddaughter of James I and her heirs as long as their protestant, therefore no Roman Catholic can be crowned or if they are married to a Roman Catholic (what religion is Charles mrs again?)
Anyway, as the England and Wales excepts the doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament (i'll come on to Scotland) i.e.
1. Parliament can legislate on any matter is wants to;
2. The courts or other body will not question or invalidate a correctly passed Act of Parliament; and
3. Parlaiment Cannot bind its successors (entrenched legislation)
see the cases of Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645 and Lord Reid speach at page 723; Manual v A-G [1983]
(we will leave out the Supremacy of Parliament and the EC thing, those that want to can look up S's 2 and 3 of the European Commities Act 1972 and the cases of Cost v ENEL [1964] and Factortame v S of S for Transport [No.2] 1991)
Therefore if Parliament of the UK decides that it would wish to had a King Alan Davies the First and passed an Act to say so then that Act would be perfectly valid in the UK. As to the fact the other Commonwealth Countries didn't adopted Alan as King, this itself would not effect the status of him being King of England and his title to the crown as Parliament decides who is monarch of the UK. It would effect his status of being the head of State of that perticular Commonwealth country, if they themselves do not pass an Act in their parlaiments to the same effect as Westminsters.
see A-G for New South Wales v Trethowan (1931) 44 CLR 394 and Lord Dixon's and Reid J speaches.
The only time the rules on succession have been changed was under the His Majesty's Declaration of Abducation Act 1936, which excepted the Edward VIII abdication and that the next in line to the throne should become King (George VI). It also declared that Edward VIII, his issues, if any, their descendants should not have any claim to the throne of England. As we all know the eldest son of the monarch is heir apparent, and is the Duke of Cornwall on inheritance and then is created Prince of Wales later.
As for Scotland, in MacCormick v Lord Advocate [1953] S.C. 369. A scottish lawyer claimed that the title of "Elizabeth II" was inconsistant with the treaty of Union 1707 as Scotland never had a "Elizabeth I". Thus the Royal Titles Act 1953 was inconsistant with the Treaty and therefore void. The Inner house of the Court of Session said that it wasn't and that it didn't matter what numeral was being used.
But the Quiet interesting thing was from Lord President Cooper's speach in it he points out the treaty of Union created a new Parliament of GB made from the Scottish and English ones. It was not just a matter of letting Scottich MPS into the English Parliament. "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law..." so the according to him the UK Parliament may legislate on something that effects the Treaty of Union but unlike the English courts the Scottish ones may be able to completely ignor it valdility
The Canadian Case you may be thinking about is called Manuel v Attorney-General [1983] Ch. 77 in front of the Vice Chancellor Megarry.
This case was sparked of by one an year earlier called Re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada (1982) 125 DLR 1. And the passing of the Canada Act 1982 giving complete sovereignty to Canada
It was a group of Native Canadians chiefs who challenged the Canada Act 1982, a statute passed by the UK parliament. They believed that the new Act was invalid as it didn't comply with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Which said that all of the canadian provinces have to agree before the UK could legislate on Canada. Quebac had said no to the amendment to the constitution.
The result being that the doctrine of supremacy applied, the old Act couldn't stop the new one as it has been passed by the House of Commons/Lords and given Royal Assent and so the court was bound by the Act and had to follow it. Thus Canada can make any laws or change its constitution without referring to the UK, well until Westminster changes its mind and repeals the Act ;-) |
|
|
|
|
| suze
|
| 67200. Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:53 pm |
|
|
Thanks, Lawlord.
Always good to have someone who actually understands all this law stuff!
I accept that the Westminster Parliament could declare Alan Davies to be King of England and Wales - and perhaps of Scotland and Northern Ireland. But it could not declare him Head of the Commonwealth without the unanimous consent of the 17 other signatories to the Statute of Westminster.
Three salient points:
1. South Africa's Parliament voted to permit Edward VIII to marry Mrs Simpson and remain King. (Not because they liked him especially, but because they really didn't like Stanley Baldwin, the British PM at the time). They came close to withdrawing from the S of W over that issue.
2. Republicanism is strong in some of the 17 nations - notably Australia - and such countries may well withdraw from the S of W in the not too distant future.
3. Upon the death of the present Queen, I think it entirely possible that the 17 will not unanimously accept King George VII - the title Prince Charles intends to use - as Head of the Commonwealth. If they do not, then he cannot have that title although he would of course remain King of England.
I'll confess I don't know about the case to which you refer concerning a First Nations challenge to the Canada Act 1982. Canadian Constitutional Law is weird, because of the existence of the "notwithstanding clause" - whereby a Federal or Provincial law can, in certain circumstances, override the Constitution. Québec does it rather too often when it wishes to enforce the use of French rather than English.
But the case I was referring to was O'Donohue v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2003 CanLII 41404 (ON S.C.).
O'Donohue claimed that the Canadian Constitutions's prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion invalidated the Act of Settlement (which also forms part of the Constitution and disbars Catholics from the throne). The case was not heard in full because it was felt not to be in the public interest, and that to uphold O'Donohue's claim would make the Union of the Crowns unworkable and would go against an intention manifest in the Preamble to the Constitution (whatever that means).
In other words, O'Donohue was told that he might have a point, but that to uphold his claim would cause too much trouble and therefore the court would not be doing so. To me, that implies that on this occasion it was seen fit to hold the Act of Succession (a British law never subject to Canadian approval) as superior to the Canadian Constitution.
For sure, Canada could withdraw from the S of W tomorrow if it wanted to, but for the most part (Québec, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and a random handful of socialists apart) it doesn't want to. Even so, I find it irksome that if Canada and Britain are to retain a joint crown, then Canada must let Britain decide who is to hold it. And I still find it odd that Elizabeth II is the only person in the world who has ever declared war on herself! |
|
|
|
|
| Lawlord
|
| 67299. Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:53 pm |
|
|
| suze wrote: |
I accept that the Westminster Parliament could declare Alan Davies to be King of England and Wales - and perhaps of Scotland and Northern Ireland. But it could not declare him Head of the Commonwealth without the unanimous consent of the 17 other signatories to the Statute of Westminster.
Three salient points:
1. South Africa's Parliament voted to permit Edward VIII to marry Mrs Simpson and remain King. (Not because they liked him especially, but because they really didn't like Stanley Baldwin, the British PM at the time). They came close to withdrawing from the S of W over that issue.
2. Republicanism is strong in some of the 17 nations - notably Australia - and such countries may well withdraw from the S of W in the not too distant future.
3. Upon the death of the present Queen, I think it entirely possible that the 17 will not unanimously accept King George VII - the title Prince Charles intends to use - as Head of the Commonwealth. If they do not, then he cannot have that title although he would of course remain King of England. |
This is a yes and no answer.
Under the Royal Titles Act 1953, the monarchs title is made by Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal, and can be anything they like. Which is how Charles will be able to call himself Gearge VII. As such the Queen's Offical title is, (take a deep breath now)-
"Elizabeth II by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland and her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith."
The forms of royal title adopted by other commonwealth countries do vary.
And at this point world of reality and Parliament begin to split. If Charles wanted to call himself "Head of the Commonwealth" and this was passed by Parliament then he would be and the UK would recognise his offical title as such. And so would other countries recognise the Head bit, in far as that was his official title. Just as parents call you by your proper name and not the one used by everyone else.
But for him to BE THE Head of the Commonwealth then that would have to be agreed upon by the other 17 countries of the organisation. Which as you righty point out is going to be very differcult. |
|
|
|
|
| suze
|
| 67420. Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:14 pm |
|
|
Just a couple of quick comments.
To clarify, there are many more than seventeen countries in the Commonwealth. That figure relates to those which are signatory to the S of W and have the Queen as Head of State. Many more are in the Commonwealth but have no role for the Queen, either because they are republics (India, South Africa etc.) or because they have their own King or Queen (Swaziland, Tonga and a couple of others).
I take the point that King Alan can call himself whatever he likes, subject to proclamation in London, but for him to actually be Head of the Commonwealth requires that consent from the 17 nations. It has been stated that the title of Head of the Commonwealth is not in fact the King or Queen's by right, but it seems most unlikely that all the countries would ever unanimously agree on anyone else having it.
And yes, slightly different titles are used in some of the countries - there is a movement for "Defender of the Faith" to be removed from the Canadian version of the title, since Canada has no state religion. (Perversely, Québec is the one province most likely to want to keep it, since the title was awarded to Henry VIII by the Pope, and Québec is of course predominantly Catholic.)
Now then, now then. For what reason was the Civic Hospital in Ottawa formally declared to be a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1943? |
|
|
|
|
| samivel
|
| 67422. Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:37 pm |
|
|
| I happen to know the answer to this, but the version I was told said that it wasn't the whole hospital, just the one room. And it was only temporary - you wouldn't be in the Netherlands if you wnet into the room today. |
|
|
|
|
| suze
|
| 67428. Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:15 pm |
|
|
You are on the right lines, samivel - and thanks for not giving the game away! Agreed it that isn't in the Netherlands any more - just temporarily for a specific reason.
Sources differ on whether the whole hospital or just a specific part of it was made Dutch, but certainly it only needed to have been part of it to achieve the intention. |
|
|
|
|
| 96aelw
|
| 67443. Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:35 pm |
|
|
| Was it the same reason that the British government ceded a room in Claridge's to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1945? |
|
|
|
|
| QI Individual
|
| 67451. Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:14 pm |
|
|
| The answer is even in (the English) Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
| suze
|
| 67454. Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:49 pm |
|
|
Yes, you got it.
The Dutch royal family spent much of the Second World War in exile in Canada, and as a result Princess Margriet was born in Ottawa. To avoid complications over her nationality, the hospital (or part thereof) was temporarily ceded to the Netherlands so that there was no danger of her being Canadian.
Oddly enough, although she's not Canadian she is British as well as Dutch - all Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia of Hannover are - and is something like 500th in line to the English / Canadian etc. throne.
Also in passing, had Britain been invaded during WWII, there were plans for the royal princesses (that is to say, she who is now the Queen and the late Princess Margaret) also to be evacuated to Canada. |
|
|
|
|
| greenstreaks
|
| 80352. Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:28 am |
|
|
So did we decide how many wives it was in the end?
_________________
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?" |
|
|
|
|
| tetsabb
|
| 80491. Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:28 pm |
|
|
A letter in this week's Private Eye makes a good point:--
| Quote: | | "if we set aside the lax marital practices of some pre-Conquest kings, the correct answer [to the question "Who was the first English King to be divorced"] is King John, who divorced Isabella of Gloucester in 1199 to marry pre-teen babe Isabella of Angouleme. Henry VIII was in fact the last ruling English monarch to be divorced, although George I had divorced his first wife when he was still only Elector of Hannover" |
|
|
|
|
|
