The Ascension of King Charles III and Queen Camilla

[wannable]

And that wasn?t a court-martial anyway, it was in a (ivilian) court.

Retired Army Major guilty of dishonestly acquiring historic military vehicles from foreign governments | The Crown Prosecution Service

Which also appears in the 2006 Military Act

[Curryong]

Which also appears in the 2006 Military Act

He was not court-martialled. What he did was a civilian offence and was dealt with in a Crown Court.

[wannable]

The Oath of Allegiance (Judicial or Official Oath) is a promise to be loyal to the British monarch, and his or her heirs and successors, sworn by certain public servants in the United Kingdom, and also by newly naturalised subjects in citizenship ceremonies.

That's All

Harry

[Curryong]

Harry

Harry has never been prosecuted for anything, and I would suggest that if he was eligible to be court-martialled as a retired officer then the British Press and media, who know all about the Armed Forces Act, would have been screaming their lungs out for it to be done.

And ?heirs and successors? means those who follow the monarch onto the Throne while the officer or official is serving, not after their retirement. Charles had no constitutional powers over the armed forces when he was Prince of Wales. 

[sara8150]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has defined and punished military crimes since its inception in 1950. It?s usually reserved for charging active-duty service members, but the code also allows certain retirees to be court-martialed. Now, certain legal cases are challenging the longstanding rules, which could have significant ramifications for military veterans.

I don?t think Dukes of York and Sussex applies when both no longer work Royals just in case

[sara8150]

Harry has never been prosecuted for anything, and I would suggest that if he was eligible to be court-martialled as a retired officer then the British Press and media, who know all about the Armed Forces Act, would have been screaming their lungs out for it to be done.

And ?heirs and successors? means those who follow the monarch onto the Throne while the officer or official is serving, not after their retirement. Charles had no constitutional powers over the armed forces when he was Prince of Wales. 

Yes

[TLLK]

According to The Sunday Telegraph, reportedly King Charles would like to have the governing which members of the BRF qualify as Counsellors of State amended. Currently the Counsellors of State are the following: Queen Consort, PoW, DoS, DoY and Pss Beatrice. Reportedly KCIII would prefer to have working members of the family as CoS.

King Charles to seek to amend laws which would relieve Harry, Andrew & Beatrice of constitutional role ? Royal Central

King Charles III is looking to amend the Regency Act 1937 to remove non-working members of The Royal Family from acting as Counsellors of State.

According to the Sunday Telegraph, the King only wants working royals to act as Counsellors of State ? the members of The Royal Family who would step in to stand in for the sovereign should he become incapacitated.

Currently, the spouse of a monarch and the four adults next in line to the throne who can be called upon to act officially in King Charles III?s place.

The five Counsellors currently in place are Queen Camilla, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice.

In the event that The King does become incapacitated, as things stand a constitutional crisis could be in the making as three of the five people who could stand in for him are non-working royals.

If Parliament decides to change the laws, it is possible that the Princess Royal and Earl of Wessex will be called upon to serve as Counsellors of State.

As things stand, Princess Beatrice will continue to serve as a Counsellor of State until 22 July 2034 when Prince George turns 21-years-old and replaces her.

When Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne, the Counsellors of State were Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew and the Duke of Edinburgh while he was still alive.

[wannable]

Yes I totally support this move

[Princess Cassandra]

And what was he courtmarshalled for exatly? A serious offence. Not for criticising a couple of members of the RF in another country though not the Commander in Chief?

It is my strong opinion that Harry's behavior is far more serious than merely criticizing a couple of members of the RF in another country.  It's best not to get into a war of words here, but I respectfully disagree with you on the seriousness of his offences, though I totally agree that a court martial would not be appropriate.

[sara8150]

Royal Family celebrates Charles and Camilla's tour of nations | Daily Mail Online

[wannable]

Of course it is far more serious. Not only on him (and her) but to the institution of the Monarchy and His Majesty's Government.

Making blank statements of racisim has a huge ramification worldwide. The couple are committed to keep up with the racial hate crime and using their privilege to not be questioned by the law. It is like a teenager blurting out something but is stuck with an 'end' result, IOW if the couple say who it was, the who it was may sue them, they need factual acceptable evidence of racism. If the couple apologize, well dooms day, another lie, and lawfully and legally accountable.

[Curryong]

Why should they apologise if a racist comment was made by a family member? And Harry has already stated that he would never say the name of the person who said it (who imo ought to be ashamed of themselves) so that individual has nothing to worry about, having gotten away with it.

[wannable]

It's a hate crime to keep it floating, if he weren't a prince, he'd be taken in by law to state who it was. In the UK and the USA.

A random joe does what he did (and She too) the law immediately forces them to out the racist hate crime, if they don't there are serious consequences.

Read both laws (UK and USA)!

[Amabel2]

Why should they apologise if a racist comment was made by a family member? And Harry has already stated that he would never say the name of the person who said it (who imo ought to be ashamed of themselves) so that individual has nothing to worry about, having gotten away with it.

but why not say who is was, honestly, intead of making insinuations and then dashing off and refusing to say who it was?

[Curryong]

It's a hate crime to keep it floating, if he weren't a prince, he'd be taken in by law to state who it was. In the UK and the USA.

A random joe does what he did (and She too) the law immediately forces them to out the racist hate crime, if they don't there are serious consequences.

Read both laws (UK and USA)!

Meghan said it and Harry merely confirmed what she said. And in my view it is pointless to keep insinuating here that Harry should be arrested or court-martialled for this and that, when he hasn?t been nor is he going to be. Also citing the law when none of us here are presumably qualified in that profession, is not going to make it so.

[wannable]

No, they both contradicted themselves.  Of course he won't be so far, he's a prince. That is the point. A Joe Random wouldn't possibly get away with what he has.

[FanDianaFancy]

I am one of the BIGGEST PRINCESS DUANA fans, HOWEVER, it is what is.
Time is what it is.
All three parties involved lived as they chose.
Life and time moves on.

King Charles and Queen Camilla, the inevitable day has come. ( Queen Consort).

Hopefully, they will live in good complete health, do their work.

[Princess Cassandra]

Why should they apologise if a racist comment was made by a family member? And Harry has already stated that he would never say the name of the person who said it (who imo ought to be ashamed of themselves) so that individual has nothing to worry about, having gotten away with it.

I truly think that the one who ought to be ashamed of himself is Harry. If he didn't want to say who it was he should have kept quiet. Many times people take things other people say the wrong way. Harry should have discussed it rationally with the person and not leaped to conclusions as he is wont to do.  In fact, he should have done that before he told Meghan about it in the first place. 

[Princess Cassandra]

The QC has said publicly that her husband is a workaholic and pushes himself too much.  I hope they will both take the next few days to rest and think about how they need to pace themselves.  I think they can do a lot of great things, but they are also both in their seventies. And he will miss the work he has been doing for the past several decades, which is added stress.

[Amabel2]

I truly think that the one who ought to be ashamed of himself is Harry. If he didn't want to say who it was he should have kept quiet. Many times people take things other people say the wrong way. Harry should have discussed it rationally with the person and not leaped to conclusions as he is wont to do.  In fact, he should have done that before he told Meghan about it in the first place.

could be me but it seems silly and childish to me to make an accusation against someone and then say that one won't say who it is.  If Harry felt so badly about it that he had to make it public, he owed it to his family, surely to make it clear who the guilty party was, rather than leaving a shadow over all his relatives except the queen and Philip. or better still, as you say, keep it private and discuss rationally, with hte person who said it.. even if he got very angry it was surely something he could discuss rahter than make a vague accusation that shaded his relatives.

[Curryong]

The late Queen?s demise is likely to be a bit of a blow to the British racing industry. Her love of a day at the races, especially when her horses won, was well known. Neither Charles or William are overly keen on horse-racing. It?s been said in various reports that Queen Consort Camilla is likely to take over the Racing Stud at Windsor but I?m not so sure, especially in the future. The Stud is a very expensive operation to run each year and Charles might regard it as superfluous to requirements. We?ll see, however.

[Nightowl]

could be me but it seems silly and childish to me to make an accusation against someone and then say that one won't say who it is.  If Harry felt so badly about it that he had to make it public, he owed it to his family, surely to make it clear who the guilty party was, rather than leaving a shadow over all his relatives except the queen and Philip. or better still, as you say, keep it private and discuss rationally, with the person who said it.. even if he got very angry it was surely something he could discuss rather than make a vague accusation that shaded his relatives.

That would of been the adult mature way of doing things yet as we all have seen, Harry is far from a mature adult. I think he runs on his feelings be whatever they maybe at the time, in other words, Harry speaks without thinking most of the time when a difficult situation arises and ends up hurting himself and others. 

[wannable]

Richard Palmer
@RoyalReporter

Level 1:
King Charles III begins his reign with strong support from the British public but they want to see a slimmed-down monarchy costing less, a nationally representative Savanta ComRes poll commissioned by the Daily Express has found.
Quote Tweet
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis

EXPRESS: Public backs King over slimmed down monarchy #TomorrowsPapersToday

^ Overwhelming support.

More than two in three are convinced he will make a good monarch and a similar number support his idea to cut the number of working royals on the public payroll. The nationwide study also found that reducing the cost of the monarchy is the public?s second biggest priority for the new king, which fits with his plan to prune the monarchy back.

King Charles III's slimmed down monarchy: Britons give verdict in exclusive poll | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

[Curryong]

Has Charles made a proclamation on the subject in the last 24 hours, lol,  or is this just the readership of the Daily Express ranting on the subject?

One of those dodgy and inaccurate Express polls again I see. I?m sure the population does want a pared down RF. No Briton wants to be paying through the nose for a dozen people on the public payroll.

However, there will be royal tours of Britain and of the Commonwealth while the realms are around, and let?s not forget the Waleses have a young family they want to see occasionally. If too much paring down goes on then George, Charlotte AND Louis might as well go to boarding school right now!

And how precisely does he intend to perform the RF duties and engagements with himself and Camilla (both growing older by the year) and William and Kate, presumably? Letting Anne and the Wessexes go into retirement alongside the elderly Kents and Gloucesters?

[wannable]

No it isn't the readership of the Express, it's a nationwide poll (it isn't the first time a media outlet pays a survey company to do a nationwide poll)