No tenían capitulaciones Charles y Diana???? El heredero al trono británico se casó, así a lo loco, sin capitulaciones matrimoniales? Y la Queen consistió tal disparate?
Navigation
Instalar el app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Se debe tener en cuenta: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Más Opciones
Estás usando un navegador obsoleto. No se pueden mostrar estos u otros sitios web correctamente.
Se debe actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Se debe actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Duques de Sussex: Opiniones en su contra.
- Autormajo
- Fecha de inicio
Cuando Carlos y Diana contrajeron matrimoniol que un heredero al trono se divorciara era algo impensable, de ahí que no se hicieran capitulaciones matrimoniales, antiguamente, cuando los matrimonios reales se realizaban por conveniencias de países, se firmaban capitulaciones matrimoniales draconianas, como, por ejemplo, en el caso de Isabel la Católica y Felipe el Hermoso, cuando los matrimonios concertados cayeron en desuso se abandonó la costumbre y, a día de hoy, están de nuevo a la orden del día, no sé si Harry ha firmado o no capitulaciones en lo referente a lo particular pero en lo referente a la Corona, te digo yo que sí, la Reina está más que escarmentada, de hecho, después del "Dianagate", no ha concedido el título de Princesa a ninguna de sus nueras ni a las esposas de sus nietos, aunque tienen el estatus jurídico de Princesas de Reino Unido, no tienen derecho al uso del título, no va a consentir que ninguna mujer que abandone la Familia Real conserve la dignidad de Princesa de Reino Unido, como tuvo que hacer con la Princesa de Gales, precisamente por no tener firmadas capitulaciones y tener que negociar, en lo referente a la Corona se firman sí o sí .No tenían capitulaciones Charles y Diana???? El heredero al trono británico se casó, así a lo loco, sin capitulaciones matrimoniales? Y la Queen consistió tal disparate?
Última edición:
Precisamente con Diana aprendieron. Seguro que no hubo clausula y la hay desde entonces. La divorciada podra largar pero la clausula estipulara cortes de grifo o algo asi...Pues Diana divorciada largó por su loquita lo que no está escrito, ella u otros en su nombre .. Las cláusulas de confidencialidad son una cosa muuuuy relativa...
edito pues leo despues que @Reverendo ha escrito lo que yo, pero mas documentado
Pongo flipando porque parece increíble un matrimonio de Charles y Diana sin preceptivo contrato. Ya tuvieron una inesperada abdicación, más grave que un divorcio, que fue la que hizo reina de rebote a la Queen. Que fuese "impensable" un divorcio no es excusa. Precisamente para los inesperados e imprevisibles impensables se hacen ese tipo de medidas mediante contratos. No aprendieron nada del Titanic...Cuando Carlos y Diana contrajeron matrimonio que un heredero al trono se divorciara era algo impensable, de ahí que no se hicieran capitulaciones matrimoniales, antiguamente, cuando los matrimonios reales se realizaban por conveniencias de países, se firmaban capitulaciones matrimoniales draconianas, como, por ejemplo, en el caso de Isabel la Católica y Felipe el Hermoso, cuando los matrimonios concertados cayeron en desuso se abandonó la costumbre y, a día de hoy, están de nuevo a la orden del día, no sé si Harry ha firmado o no capitulaciones en lo referente a lo particular pero en lo referente a la Corona, te digo yo que sí, la Reina está más que escarmentada, de hecho, después del "Dianagate", no a concedido el título de Princesa a ninguna de sus nueras ni a las esposas de sus nietos, aunque tienen el estatus jurídico de Princesas de Reino Unido, no tienen derecho al uso del título, no va a consentir que ninguna mujer que abandone la Familia Real conserve la dignidad de Princesa de Reino Unido, como tuvo que hacer con la Princesa de Gales, precisamente por no tener firmadas capitulaciones y tener que negociar, en lo referente a la Corona se firman sí o sí .
Gracias por aclarar tu calificación de flipando, en mi caso, por supuesto, ponme las calificaciones que estimes oportunas, flipandos, cruces rojas...lo que estimes oportuno, para eso están, el caso que comentas, la abdicación de Eduardo VIII, no es precedente en este caso, ya que ocurrió todo lo contrario a lo que estamos debatiendo, el problema en el caso que comentas vino a raíz de su matrimonio con una doble divorciada y norteamericana!!!!, no de un divorcio, escribo norteamericana seguido de signos de exclamación porque, si lees artículos de la época, da la impresión de que era peor el hecho de que Wallis fuese norteamericana que el que fuese doblemente divorciada.Pongo flipando porque parece increíble un matrimonio de Charles y Diana sin preceptivo contrato. Ya tuvieron una inesperada abdicación, más grave que un divorcio, que fue la que hizo reina de rebote a la Queen. Que fuese "impensable" un divorcio no es excusa. Precisamente para los inesperados e imprevisibles impensables se hacen ese tipo de medidas mediante contratos. No aprendieron nada del Titanic...
El caso Wallis ya sabemos que, en realidad no fue una cuestión sentimental y si que al rey Eduardo VIII, por su no disimulada empatia con Hitler y los nazis, fue necesario desalojar lo no sólo del trono, también del país. A Wallis le tocó el marrón de acompañar al rey al exilio como le podría haber tocado a cualquier otra de las amantes del rey pero el hecho de ser divorciada fue la excusa perfecta para endosarselo a ella. Al pueblo soberano y con una casi previsible guerra con Alemania ya en lontananza se le contó la historia romántica pero la familia real y el gobierno sabían de sobra que no. Por eso extraña la poca previsión no sólo de la Queen, también del gobierno para esto de los matrimonios reales donde se compromete no sólo el prestigio de la institución, también muchos temas económicos. Pero parece que los gobiernos británicos, como sus barcos, nunca tienen plan B. Y resulta que menos uno, se le han divorciado todos los hijos a la Queen. Han ido parcheado sobre la marcha y achicando agua siguen a flote pero el heredero casado con una católica... algo aún peor que con una divorciada. Y con la llegada de Meghan se completa el círculo karmatico de todo lo que la Queen quiso siempre evitar y a lo que no ha tenido más remedio que poner buena cara..Gracias por aclarar tu calificación de flipando, en mi caso, por supuesto, ponme las calificaciones que estimes oportunas, flipandos, cruces rojas...lo que estimes oportuno, para eso están, el caso que comentas, la abdicación de Eduardo VIII, no es precedente en este caso, ya que ocurrió todo lo contrario a lo que estamos debatiendo, el problema en el caso que comentas vino a raíz de su matrimonio con una doble divorciada y norteamericana!!!!, no de un divorcio, escribo norteamericana seguido de signos de exclamación porque, si lees artículos de la época, da la impresión de que era peor el hecho de que Wallis fuese norteamericana que el que fuese doblemente divorciada.
Última edición:
Charles and Diana Agree on Divorce TermsNo tenían capitulaciones Charles y Diana???? El heredero al trono británico se casó, así a lo loco, sin capitulaciones matrimoniales? Y la Queen consistió tal disparate?
By SARAH LYALLJULY 13, 1996
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
- archive_feedback@nytimes.com.
It began as an old-fashioned fairy tale but soon became just another failed modern marriage, brought down by anger, tears and adultery. And today, almost 15 years after the wedding between Lady Diana Spencer and Charles, the Prince of Wales, the consummately incompatible couple announced that they had finally reached an agreement on the terms for their divorce.
Under the agreement, announced in a joint statement by Buckingham Palace, representing Charles, and Anthony Julius, Diana's lawyer, the Princess will receive a big lump-sum payment instead of regular alimony checks. Neither side would release details of the financial settlement, but London newspapers have reported that Diana is getting about $22.5 million in cash, as well as about $600,000 a year earmarked to maintain her private office.
She is to give up her right to be Queen of England and to be called "Her Royal Highness." Queen Elizabeth II was reported to have been ready to allow Diana to retain the honorific, but Prince Charles was said to be adamant that she give it up.
The removal of the "Royal Highness" title, which separates the royal family from the rest of British nobility, officially obliges Diana to curtsey to others who have it -- her ex-husband, for instance, and even her own children. But the palace said, rather cryptically, that Princess Diana will continue to be "regarded as a member of the royal family" and "will from time to time receive invitations to state and national public occasions" at the invitation "of the sovereign or the Government."
Diana and Charles, the heir to the British throne, have been formally separated for over three years and have been trying to reach a divorce agreement since February, but negotiations have bogged down in angry demands and counter-demands. Today's statement, though, dismissed in a paragraph all those months of antagonism, asserting that the settlement was "amicable" and had been "greatly assisted by both the fairness of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales's proposals and by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales's ready acceptance of them."
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The agreement gives Diana and Charles equal access to their children, Prince William, 14, who is set to succeed his father as King of England, and his brother, Prince Harry, 11. The children spend most of the year at boarding school, and have been alternating holidays with each parent, so there seems little likelihood that the children's lives will be greatly altered.
Diana will also be allowed to keep her apartment at Kensington Palace "with the Queen's agreement," will be given access to the jets used by the royal family, and will, Buckingham Palace said, be able "to use the state apartments at St. James's Palace for entertaining," as long as she asks permission first.
Diana will be forced to vacate her offices next to her ex-husband's at St. James's Palace, but will be allotted space at Kensington Palace for new offices. And although she gets to keep all the jewelry she has amassed during her marriage, she will relinquish -- at her own request, Buckingham Palace said -- a host of honorary military titles.
It is not clear what would happen if Diana were to remarry, but experts on the royal family believe that she would probably have to relinquish many benefits of the divorce agreement, like her home, the financing of her office and possibly the title "Princess of Wales."
The divorce will not alter Charles's right to become King of England, but if he remarries, Church of England officials have said he might jeopardize his position of supreme governor of the church. However, the Prince has said he has no intention of marrying again.
Today's announcement brings to a sorry end a saga that began with hope and romance more than 15 years ago when Charles, then a somewhat awkward 32-year-old bachelor, announced that he planned to marry the shy Diana, then only 20. But afer a lavish wedding that lifted the spirits of a down-in-the-dumps nation and was eagerly watched by tens of millions of television viewers around the world, relations between the couple began to slide into misunderstanding and hatred.
The couple had few common interests: Charles loved horses, his garden and discussions about philosophy, while the Princess adored fancy clothes, listening to pop music on her Walkman, and telephone gossip. Moreover, it seemed that Charles was still involved with another woman -- Camilla Parker Bowles, according to British newspaper reports -- and Diana descended into depression and bulimia, making several half-hearted suicide attempts that were widely seen as cries for help.
After a number of years in which the couple's private unhappiness had become clear even in their public appearances, Andrew Morton, one of a legion of British journalists who specialize in the royal family, published "Diana: Her True Story," which revealed all the sordid details of the royal marriage and managed to shatter whatever myths were left. More revelations of mad, bad and bizarre behavior on both sides followed, and in December 1992 the couple announced that they had agreed to a formal separation.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
But it wasn't until this winter, after Diana gave an extraordinary television interview in which she described her bulimia and self-mutilation, admitted to adultery and painted a chilling picture of a stiff and uncaring royal family, that Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles's mother, stepped in and demanded that his son end his marriage.
But even though two of the Queen's other children -- Prince Andrew and Princess Anne -- have gone through divorces of their own, the end to the Prince of Wales's marriage had no modern precedent. Unlike other couples, the two have hardly been fighting over things like custody of the cat, who has to pay for the childrens' college educations or who gets to keep the Bob Dylan albums.
Instead, the negotiations to end Charles and Diana's marriage have focused on a lump-sum settlement and on what sort of public role Diana -- who is far more popular than her reserved husband -- would continue to play after the end of her marriage. Conscious that a divorce would chip away her status, Diana has fought to maintain as many of her royal trappings as possible and has pressed for a financial settlement that would allow enable her to maintain her expensive way of living.
In its statement, Buckingham Palace left vague the question of what sort of role Diana might play in the future, saying that would be "essentially for her to decide." However, it said she would have to clear any foreign trips, except those for private vacations, with the Queen (or later, with her ex-husband), and would be allowed to represent the country and the royal family only with the permission of the sovereign and the Government.
And while the financial package is certainly generous (albeit far less than the $75 million she reportedly asked for), Diana has lost a major battle in the requirement that she give up her "Royal Highness" title.
As mother of Prince William, the heir to the throne after his father, Diana is sure to have greater status than her sister-in-law, Sarah, the Duchess of York, who recently concluded her own divorce from the Queen's second son, Prince Andrew.
Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage and an expert on royal behavior, said that stripping the "H.R.H." from Diana's title was "without historical precedent" and predicted that it would spur a public-opinion backlash.
How a nation that has lapped up every detail of Charles and Diana's courtship, marriage, estrangement and separation will respond to the final chapter in their story together remains to be seen. The palace said the couple's divorce would go to court on Monday, and would be official by the end of August.
Va a ser que terminaremos dándole la razón a Samantha Markle cuando se da gusto contándole a quien quiera oirla (y creerle) que su querida hermanita Meghan no es ninguna perita en dulce.
Es que cuando el río suena piedras lleva y todos esos comentarios de SM contra MM no debían ser gratuitos ni producto de la envidia.
Hablaba alquien que la conoce bien y le tocó padecerla mucho tiempo.
La falta de relación de MM con su padre y la poca o ninguna importancia que le da a su familia materna es algo que ha perjudicado mucho su imagen en el reino.
Motivos de sobra para que caiga más mal que una patada en el hígado.
Todo el mundo esperaba que fuera Archie el motivo perfecto para restablecer su relación al menos con Thomas pero no... la prepotencia no la deja.
Ella es ahora de mejor familia que los Markle.
Es que cuando el río suena piedras lleva y todos esos comentarios de SM contra MM no debían ser gratuitos ni producto de la envidia.
Hablaba alquien que la conoce bien y le tocó padecerla mucho tiempo.
La falta de relación de MM con su padre y la poca o ninguna importancia que le da a su familia materna es algo que ha perjudicado mucho su imagen en el reino.
Motivos de sobra para que caiga más mal que una patada en el hígado.
Todo el mundo esperaba que fuera Archie el motivo perfecto para restablecer su relación al menos con Thomas pero no... la prepotencia no la deja.
Ella es ahora de mejor familia que los Markle.
Es interesante lo que comentas del catolicismo, antiguamente, cualquier miembro de la Familia Real que contrajera matrimonio con un católico era excluido de la línea de sucesión por sí y sus descendientes, a día de hoy no es así, si dicho miembro conserva su fé anglicana, tampoco son apartados los descendientes de dicho matrimonio, si se educan en la fé anglicana.El caso Wallis ya sabemos que, en realidad no fue una cuestión sentimental y si que al rey Eduardo VIII, por su no disimulada empatia con Hitler y los nazis, fue necesario desalojar lo no sólo del trono, también del país. A Wallis le tocó el marrón de acompañar al rey al exilio como le podría haber tocado a cualquier otra de las amantes del rey pero el hecho de ser divorciada fue la excusa perfecta para endosarselo a ella. Al pueblo soberano y con una casi previsible guerra con Alemania ya en lontananza se le contó la historia romántica pero la familia real y el gobierno sabían de sobra que no. Por eso extraña la poca previsión no sólo de la Queen, también del gobierno para esto de los matrimonios reales donde se compromete no sólo el prestigio de la institución, también muchos temas económicos. Pero parece que los gobiernos británicos, como sus barcos, nunca tienen plan B. Y resulta que menos uno, se le han divorciado todos los hijos a la Queen. Han ido parcheado sobre la marcha y achicando agua siguen a flote pero el heredero casado con una católica... algo aún peor que con una divorciada. Y con la llegada de Meghan se completa el círculo karmatico de todo lo que la Queen quiso siempre evitar y a lo que no ha tenido más remedio que poner buena cara..
Harry cuando se fue del juego de polo , salió solo , al único que dijo a donde iba fue a William , varios medios aseguran que estuvo perdido por 48 horas ...apago el celular .
Así estará ...
Pues que coma de su propio cocinado. Nadie lo obligó a echarse semejante carga sobre sus espaldas. Que asuma las consecuencias si acaso ese matrimonio fue un error.
Y si a la "flamante" duquesa se la están poniendo difícil pues hay una salida bien fácil: divórciate morenita!
Última edición:
Interesantísimo artículo, hay un dato que no cita, y es el hecho de que la Reina ofreció a Diana el derecho a seguir teniendo el tratamiento de Alteza Real, a cambio de renunciar al título de Princesa de Gales y sustituirlo por el de Duquesa de Cornualles, que, como todos sabemos, es el utilizado actualmente por Camilla, a lo cual Diana se negó, eso nos da una idea de la importancia que tenía para Diana el conservar su título de Princesa. Algo incomprensible, el título de Princesa sin el tratamiento de Alteza Real es un título vacío.Charles and Diana Agree on Divorce Terms
By SARAH LYALLJULY 13, 1996
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
- archive_feedback@nytimes.com.
It began as an old-fashioned fairy tale but soon became just another failed modern marriage, brought down by anger, tears and adultery. And today, almost 15 years after the wedding between Lady Diana Spencer and Charles, the Prince of Wales, the consummately incompatible couple announced that they had finally reached an agreement on the terms for their divorce.
Under the agreement, announced in a joint statement by Buckingham Palace, representing Charles, and Anthony Julius, Diana's lawyer, the Princess will receive a big lump-sum payment instead of regular alimony checks. Neither side would release details of the financial settlement, but London newspapers have reported that Diana is getting about $22.5 million in cash, as well as about $600,000 a year earmarked to maintain her private office.
She is to give up her right to be Queen of England and to be called "Her Royal Highness." Queen Elizabeth II was reported to have been ready to allow Diana to retain the honorific, but Prince Charles was said to be adamant that she give it up.
The removal of the "Royal Highness" title, which separates the royal family from the rest of British nobility, officially obliges Diana to curtsey to others who have it -- her ex-husband, for instance, and even her own children. But the palace said, rather cryptically, that Princess Diana will continue to be "regarded as a member of the royal family" and "will from time to time receive invitations to state and national public occasions" at the invitation "of the sovereign or the Government."
Diana and Charles, the heir to the British throne, have been formally separated for over three years and have been trying to reach a divorce agreement since February, but negotiations have bogged down in angry demands and counter-demands. Today's statement, though, dismissed in a paragraph all those months of antagonism, asserting that the settlement was "amicable" and had been "greatly assisted by both the fairness of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales's proposals and by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales's ready acceptance of them."
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
The agreement gives Diana and Charles equal access to their children, Prince William, 14, who is set to succeed his father as King of England, and his brother, Prince Harry, 11. The children spend most of the year at boarding school, and have been alternating holidays with each parent, so there seems little likelihood that the children's lives will be greatly altered.
Diana will also be allowed to keep her apartment at Kensington Palace "with the Queen's agreement," will be given access to the jets used by the royal family, and will, Buckingham Palace said, be able "to use the state apartments at St. James's Palace for entertaining," as long as she asks permission first.
Diana will be forced to vacate her offices next to her ex-husband's at St. James's Palace, but will be allotted space at Kensington Palace for new offices. And although she gets to keep all the jewelry she has amassed during her marriage, she will relinquish -- at her own request, Buckingham Palace said -- a host of honorary military titles.
It is not clear what would happen if Diana were to remarry, but experts on the royal family believe that she would probably have to relinquish many benefits of the divorce agreement, like her home, the financing of her office and possibly the title "Princess of Wales."
The divorce will not alter Charles's right to become King of England, but if he remarries, Church of England officials have said he might jeopardize his position of supreme governor of the church. However, the Prince has said he has no intention of marrying again.
Today's announcement brings to a sorry end a saga that began with hope and romance more than 15 years ago when Charles, then a somewhat awkward 32-year-old bachelor, announced that he planned to marry the shy Diana, then only 20. But afer a lavish wedding that lifted the spirits of a down-in-the-dumps nation and was eagerly watched by tens of millions of television viewers around the world, relations between the couple began to slide into misunderstanding and hatred.
The couple had few common interests: Charles loved horses, his garden and discussions about philosophy, while the Princess adored fancy clothes, listening to pop music on her Walkman, and telephone gossip. Moreover, it seemed that Charles was still involved with another woman -- Camilla Parker Bowles, according to British newspaper reports -- and Diana descended into depression and bulimia, making several half-hearted suicide attempts that were widely seen as cries for help.
After a number of years in which the couple's private unhappiness had become clear even in their public appearances, Andrew Morton, one of a legion of British journalists who specialize in the royal family, published "Diana: Her True Story," which revealed all the sordid details of the royal marriage and managed to shatter whatever myths were left. More revelations of mad, bad and bizarre behavior on both sides followed, and in December 1992 the couple announced that they had agreed to a formal separation.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
But it wasn't until this winter, after Diana gave an extraordinary television interview in which she described her bulimia and self-mutilation, admitted to adultery and painted a chilling picture of a stiff and uncaring royal family, that Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles's mother, stepped in and demanded that his son end his marriage.
But even though two of the Queen's other children -- Prince Andrew and Princess Anne -- have gone through divorces of their own, the end to the Prince of Wales's marriage had no modern precedent. Unlike other couples, the two have hardly been fighting over things like custody of the cat, who has to pay for the childrens' college educations or who gets to keep the Bob Dylan albums.
Instead, the negotiations to end Charles and Diana's marriage have focused on a lump-sum settlement and on what sort of public role Diana -- who is far more popular than her reserved husband -- would continue to play after the end of her marriage. Conscious that a divorce would chip away her status, Diana has fought to maintain as many of her royal trappings as possible and has pressed for a financial settlement that would allow enable her to maintain her expensive way of living.
In its statement, Buckingham Palace left vague the question of what sort of role Diana might play in the future, saying that would be "essentially for her to decide." However, it said she would have to clear any foreign trips, except those for private vacations, with the Queen (or later, with her ex-husband), and would be allowed to represent the country and the royal family only with the permission of the sovereign and the Government.
And while the financial package is certainly generous (albeit far less than the $75 million she reportedly asked for), Diana has lost a major battle in the requirement that she give up her "Royal Highness" title.
As mother of Prince William, the heir to the throne after his father, Diana is sure to have greater status than her sister-in-law, Sarah, the Duchess of York, who recently concluded her own divorce from the Queen's second son, Prince Andrew.
Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage and an expert on royal behavior, said that stripping the "H.R.H." from Diana's title was "without historical precedent" and predicted that it would spur a public-opinion backlash.
How a nation that has lapped up every detail of Charles and Diana's courtship, marriage, estrangement and separation will respond to the final chapter in their story together remains to be seen. The palace said the couple's divorce would go to court on Monday, and would be official by the end of August.
Interesantísimo artículo, hay un dato que no cita, y es el hecho de que la Reina ofreció a Diana el derecho a seguir teniendo el tratamiento de Alteza Real, a cambio de renunciar al título de Princesa de Gales y sustituirlo por el de Duquesa de Cornualles, que, como todos sabemos, es el utilizado actualmente por Camilla, a lo cual Diana se negó, eso nos da una idea de la importancia que tenía para Diana el conservar su título de Princesa. Algo incomprensible, el título de Princesa sin el tratamiento de Alteza Real es un título vacío.
Diana no era muy espabilada pero sí muy tenaz...
Temas Similares
- Respuestas
- 6
- Visitas
- 465
- Respuestas
- 8
- Visitas
- 276
- Respuestas
- 30
- Visitas
- 923
